THE INDEPENDENT COMMISSION FOR THE REMUNERATION OF PUBLIC OFFICE

Document Sample
THE INDEPENDENT COMMISSION FOR THE REMUNERATION OF PUBLIC OFFICE Powered By Docstoc
					THE INDEPENDENT COMMISSION
   FOR THE REMUNERATION
             OF
   PUBLIC OFFICE BEARERS




    EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
          OF THE
     RECOMMENDATIONS
  ON THE REMUNERATION
 OF PUBLIC OFFICE BEARERS




            1
To: Mr TM Mbeki, the President of the Republic of South Africa


I have the honour to submit to you, in terms of section 8(4) of the Independent
Commission for the Remuneration of Public Office Bearers Act, 1997 (Act No. 92
of 1997), the recommendations of this Commission following a major review of
the remuneration structures and practices relating to all public office bearer
positions in the Republic of South Africa.


Yours sincerely




Justice Dikgang Moseneke
Chairperson




The administrative offices of the Independent Commission for the Remuneration
of Public Office Bearers are situated in the Union Building, Pretoria.


Postal address:   The Secretary
                  Independent Commission for the Remuneration of Public Office Bearers
                  Private Bag X1000
                  Pretoria
                  0001


Telephone:        (012) 300 5404 / 8
Fax:              (012) 323 9512
E-mail:           Neil@po.gov.za
Website:          www.remcommission.gov.za


Office hours:     08:00 – 16h30




                                             2
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY




THE MANDATE




1.         The Independent Commission for the Remuneration of Public Office Bearers
           (“the Commission”) owes its existence and mandate to the finance
           provisions1 of the Constitution and national legislation2. The Constitution
           requires Parliament to establish a framework for the determination of
           salaries, allowances and benefits of members of the National Assembly
           (“NA”), permanent delegates to the National Council of Provinces (“NCOP”),
           members of the Cabinet, deputy ministers, traditional leaders, and the
           upper limit of salaries, allowances and benefits of members of provincial
           legislatures, members of executive councils and members of municipal
           councils. However, the national executive, provincial executive or a
           municipality          may       only     implement          the    framework   after   taking   into
           consideration the recommendations of the Commission.                                   It is thus
           important to appreciate that the role of the Commission is not to determine
           remuneration, but to make recommendations to the President, Parliament
           and, in the case of local authorities, to the national minister concerned.
           Before finalising its recommendations, the Commission is obliged to consult
           with the Minister of Finance, Minister of Justice and Constitutional
           Development and the Chief Justice.


2.         The       Constitution          clearly      requires       that    the   Commission     must    be
           independent. Except for the chairperson, none of its members may serve as
           a public office bearer, and the President appoints members for a non-
           renewable term of five years. The chairperson must be a judge, and must
           be recused when recommendations relating to the judiciary are formulated.
           In formulating its recommendations on the remuneration of public office
           bearers, the Commission is therefore required to be impartial and is subject

1
    Chapter 13 of the Constitution and in particular section 219
2
    For a schedule of applicable legislation see Annexure A

                                                                   3
        only to the Constitution and the law that governs it. The Commission has
        wide powers to consult, investigate, and receive submissions and to compel
        evidence and disclosure.                But in the end, its recommendations must be
        arrived at impartially and without improper external influence.


3.      Legislation3 requires that when the Commission makes recommendations it
        must first take into account the job content; that is the role, status, duties,
        functions and responsibilities of the office bearers concerned. Thereafter,
        the Commission must consider possible comparators in current principles,
        and levels of remuneration of organs of state particularly and society
        generally.       It   must      also     consider      external       fiscal    restraints      such   as
        affordability and available state resources, as well as macro economic
        factors such as inflation and any other factor the Commission considers
        relevant.4


4.      Subsequent legislation5 has provided for the framework for determining
        salaries, allowances and benefits of all public office bearers. What is clear is
        that public office bearers, as defined, fall in vastly different classes of roles,
        status, duties, functions and responsibilities. They are drawn mainly from
        the customary three arms of the state, namely the legislature, the
        executive and the judiciary. They also emerge from different spheres of
        government, namely national, provincial and local, and include traditional
        leaders at various levels of authority. What they share in common is that
        they are not members of the public service “which must loyally execute the
        lawful policies of the government of the day”6 but may not “be favoured or
        prejudiced only because they support a particular political party or cause.”7
        On the other hand, public office bearers carry legislative or executive or
        judicial authority, vested in them by the Constitution and other law. The
        hallmark of their roles is high-level decision-making, sound judgement and
        discretion for which they are publicly accountable.                            They are required to

3
  Independent Commission for the Remuneration of Public Office Bearers Act 92 of 1997 (the Commission Act)
4
  Section 8 (6) of the Commission Act
5
  Remuneration of Public Office Bearers Act 20 of 1998
6
  See section 197(1) of the Constitution
7
  See section 197(3) of the Constitution

                                                         4
         exercise their discretion - be it legislative or executive or judicial- in
         accordance with the law, honestly and in the public interest, because they
         bear a stewardship responsibility towards all citizens


5.       The Commission has to review and make recommendations on salaries,
         allowances and benefits of public office bearers at least once every year.
         Ordinarily salaries refer to the guaranteed and basic cash portion of
         remuneration.    Benefits include mainly pension and medical aid benefits
         and, in a few remaining instances, housing and other benefits. An
         allowance is a specified payment to an employee, other than a salary or
         benefit that is aimed at reimbursing out of pocket expenses arising from
         the needs of the job or office. It is clear from the wording of the legislation
         that the brief of the Commission includes making recommendations on
         “tools of trade”, which are those resources which are necessary to get the
         job done.


6.       The legislative framework stipulates that when the Commission formulates
         its recommendations on remuneration it must take into account:
     •   The role, status, duties, and responsibilities of the office-bearers concerned;
     •   The affordability of different levels of remuneration of public office bearers;
     •   Current principles and levels of remuneration, particularly in respect of
         organs of state, and in society generally;
     •   Inflationary increases;
     •   The available resources of the state; and
     •   Any other factor which, in the opinion of the Commission, is relevant.


7.       Up to now the recommendations of the Commission have been limited to
         annual inflation related cost-of-living adjustments. The Commission has
         availed itself of this opportune moment to conduct a major review of the
         structure, practices and levels of public office bearer remuneration in South
         Africa. As early as 1999, the Commission stated its intention to recommend
         the transformation of the system for public office bearer remuneration to
         one characterised by total remuneration packages. It is however clear that


                                             5
           a conversion to a total remuneration system must be preceded by an
           enquiry   into    whether   existing       and   mainly   historical   remuneration
           arrangements are appropriate and equitable.           This report gives effect to
           this intention.




KEY CONCEPTS




8.         We begin with a few key concepts referred to frequently in the
           recommendations. These are:
      •    Public office bearer
      •    Remuneration
      •    Tools of trade
      •    Total remuneration package


PUBLIC OFFICE BEARER



9.         In common parlance a public office bearer may be a person who holds any
           public office in government.      However, throughout this report the word
           “public office bearer” bears the narrow meaning assigned to it by
           legislation. The Independent Commission for the Remuneration of Public
           Office Bearers Act, 19978 (the Commission Act) and the Remuneration of
           Public Office Bearers Act, 19989 (the Remuneration Act) restricts the term
           to the following positions in public office:
      •    The President and Deputy President;
      •    Members of Cabinet;
      •    Deputy Ministers;
      •    Members of the National Assembly;
      •    Permanent Delegates to the National Council of Provinces;
      •    Members of the National and Provincial Houses of Traditional Leaders;
      •    Traditional Leaders;

8
    Act 92 of 1997
9
    Act 20 of 1998

                                                  6
       •   Premiers and Members of an Executive Council of a Province;
       •   Members of a Provincial Legislature; and
       •   Mayors and Members of a Municipal Council.
       •   The Judicial Officers (Amendment of Conditions of Service) Act, 200310
           extended the statutory definition of office-bearers to include Constitutional
           Court Judges, Judges and Magistrates. Table 1 below represents a full list
           of public office bearer positions, as defined.




10
     Act 28 of 2003

                                               7
  Table 1: Public office bearer positions


                   Executive Authority               Legislative Authority                         Judicial Authority

                   •   President                     National Assembly                             • Chief Justice
                   •   Deputy President              • Speaker                                     • Deputy Chief Justice
                   •   Minister                      • Deputy Speaker                              • President of Supreme Court of Appeal
                   •   Deputy Minister               • House Chair                                 • Judge of Constitutional Court
                                                     • Leader of Opposition                        • Deputy President of Supreme Court
                                                     • Chief Whip: Majority Party                          of Appeal
                                                     • Parliamentary Counsel: President            • Judge of Supreme Court of Appeal
                                                     • Parliamentary Counsel: Deputy President
                                                     • Chairperson of a Committee
                                                     • Deputy Chief Whip: Majority Party
                                                     • Chief Whip: Largest Minority Party
                                                     • Leaders of Minority Parties
National Level




                                                     • Whip
                                                     • Member

                                                     National Council of Provinces
                                                     • Chairperson
                                                     • Deputy Chairperson
                                                     • House Chair
                                                     • Chairperson of a Committee
                                                     • Chief Whip
                                                     • Whip
                                                     • Permanent Delegates

                                                     National House of Traditional Leaders
                                                     • Chairperson: NHTL
                                                     • Deputy Chairperson: NHTL
                                                     • Member of NHTL

                   •   Premier                       Provincial Legislature                        • Judge President of the High Court
                   •   Member of Executive Council   •    Speaker                                  • Deputy Judge President of the High
                                                     •    Deputy Speaker                                   Court
                                                     •    Leader of Opposition                     • Judge of the High Court
                                                     •    Chairperson of Committees                • President of the Divorce Court
                                                     •    Deputy Chairperson of Committees         • Presiding Officer of the Divorce
                                                     •    Chairperson of a Committee                       Court
Provincial Level




                                                     •    Chief Whip: Majority Party
                                                     •    Deputy Chief Whip: Majority Party
                                                     •    Chief Whip: Largest Minority Party
                                                     •    Leader of Minority Parties
                                                     •    Whip
                                                     •    Member of Provincial Parliament

                                                     Provincial House of Traditional Leaders
                                                     •    Chairperson: PHTL
                                                     •    Deputy Chairperson: PHTL
                                                     •    Member: PHTL

                   •   Executive Mayor               Municipal Council                             •   Special Grade Chief Magistrate
                   •   Deputy Executive Mayor        •   Speaker                                   •   Regional Court President
Provincial Level




                   •   Mayor                         •   Whip                                      •   Chief Magistrate
                   •   Deputy Mayor                  •   Chairperson of a sub-council              •   Regional Magistrate
                   •   Member of Executive Council   •   Municipal Councillor                      •   Senior Magistrate
                   •   Member of Mayoral Council                                                   •   Magistrate
                                                     Traditional Leaders
                                                     •    King
                                                     •    Senior Traditional Leader
                                                     •    Headman
                                                                                               (Deloitte & Touche; 2006)


                                                                       8
REMUNERATION



10.        In this report remuneration refers to the total monetary value of the salary,
           allowances and benefits of any office-bearer, as referred to in section
           8(4)(a) and (b) of the Commission Act, 199711. This is to be clearly
           distinguished from “tools of trade” discussed below. Current remuneration
           arrangements differ from one class of office bearer to another and in some
           instances the distinction between benefits and allowances becomes blurred.
           Benefits may commonly include pension and medical aid contributions and,
           in limited cases, a housing subsidy and a 13th cheque. On the other hand,
           allowances tend to be limited to travel, accommodation and subsistence
           and in rare cases, entertainment expenses related to the duties of public
           office.


TOOLS OF TRADE



11.        Section 8(4)(c) of the Commission Act, 199712 requires the Commission to
           make recommendations on the resources which are necessary to enable an
           office-bearer to perform his or her functions effectively. These means or
           resources or tools, that assist an office bearer to do her or his work
           properly, are commonly referred to as “tools of trade”.      These “tools of
           trade” do not form part of the remuneration package of an office-bearer but
           are provided and paid for by the state. Common examples of tools of trade
           would include workplace equipment and support, means of communication
           and technology (mobile phones, laptops and internet access), means of
           transport, and security.




11
     Act 92 of 1997
12
     Act 92 of 1997

                                             9
TOTAL REMUNERATION PACKAGE



12.   The term total remuneration package refers to a composite, comprehensive
      and flexible remuneration package consisting of a set of core benefits and
      allowances, and a flexible portion, made up of:
  •   Basic salary;
  •   Medical aid;
  •   Retirement funding;
  •   Risk benefits (disability, life insurance); and
  •   A flexible portion to be structured in accordance with individual needs.


13.   The core characteristic of a total remuneration package is that it represents
      the total amount of all cash or cash equivalents paid to the employee as
      compensation (basic salary and certain benefits and allowances), but does
      not at this stage represent the total cost of employment to employer. It
      does not permit hidden remuneration costs for the employer or undisclosed
      monetary benefits or allowances for the office bearer. For the purpose of
      this report total remuneration package has been interpreted as consisting
      of the following components:
  •   Basic salary;
  •   Motor vehicle allowance;
  •   Employer’s contribution to pension fund;
  •   Employer’s contribution to medical aid fund; and
  •   Where applicable, a housing allowance, 13th cheque, and cellular telephone
      allowance has been included in the calculation.




HISTORY OF THE COMMISSION




14.   In the relevant chapter the report sets out the constitutional and legislative
      origin of the Commission, and in so doing briefly defines its mandate. In
      the pre-democracy era Parliament determined the remuneration of its
      members and of the President and the Cabinet. Sometimes an ad hoc

                                          10
      commission that was tasked to review and recommend remuneration
      preceded the determination. However, Parliament was not obliged to take
      the   recommendations         of   the    Commission        into    consideration.    The
      determination of remuneration was on a case-by-case basis, it lacked
      openness and was often self–serving because it was not made independent
      of the beneficiaries.


15.   The advent of constitutional democracy introduced a substantial shift in the
      manner in which the remuneration of high ranking public officer bearers
      was to be fixed.           Now a constitutionally mandated and independent
      remuneration commission, consisting of people who are not public office
      bearers and chaired by a judge, must make recommendations on the
      salaries, allowances and benefits of office bearers. The commissioners hold
      office for a non-renewable term of five years each.


16.   The framework for the remuneration of public office bearers is set by
      legislation,   but   the    affected     state    institutions     may   not   determine
      remuneration     without     due   regard        to   the   recommendations      of   the
      Commission.     The present legislative scheme does not permit any office
      bearer to determine her or his own remuneration.                   Parliament fixes the
      remuneration of the President on the recommendation of the Commission.
      The President in turn determines the remuneration of legislators and of
      members of Cabinet on the recommendation of the Commission. The
      President and Parliament determine the remuneration of the judiciary,
      again on the recommendation of the Commission. The judge chairing the
      Commission may not take part in the formulation of recommendations from
      which he or she may benefit. The Commission is obliged to consult with
      the Minister of Finance, the Chief Justice and the Minister of Justice and
      Constitutional Development before finalising its recommendations on the
      Judiciary to the President and to Parliament.


17.   The report also draws attention to the activities of the Commission over the
      last decade. Their historical role was marked by annual recommendations


                                               11
      which     amounted   to   inflation   related   cost-of-living   adjustments   on
      remuneration patterns inherited in 1994.         The report records that, since
      1999, the Commission has been advocating for a movement towards a total
      remuneration system but urged that it be preceded by a comprehensive
      review of the existing pay structure.




NEED FOR A REVIEW




18.   In one of the chapters of the report, the Commission records its justification
      for conducting this comprehensive appraisal of the remuneration patterns
      amongst public office bearers and underscores:
  •   The enquiry whether the remuneration practices relating to public office
      bearers are properly aligned to the objects of our constitutional democracy,
      good governance and the broader socio-economic context of our country;
  •   The issue whether office bearers in the course of public duty are
      remunerated fairly, and in line with developments in remuneration practice
      generally;
  •   The fact that despite the expected systematic transition since 1994, no
      proper job evaluation, grading or benchmarking has ever been done in
      respect of public office bearer remuneration;
  •   The need to establish public office as a viable, valuable and valued
      profession or career;
  •   The need to attract and retain appropriate and suitable talent in public
      office;
  •   The existence of a number of historical and functional inequities within the
      vertical and horizontal structures of public office bearer remuneration; and
  •   The challenge of respecting notions of parity of treatment of office bearers
      at the same grade whilst devising a measurable performance component to
      the remuneration of public office bearers.




                                            12
SCOPE OF REVIEW




19.   Before we describe the review process, it is important to emphasize the
      scope of this review. Given the magnitude of the review and the fact that
      this is the first time that a review of this size is conducted, we did not
      consider it appropriate or practical to report on all components of the
      remuneration of public office bearers at this stage. In particular, this report
      does not report on the appropriateness of the pension and medical aid
      benefits, and tools of trade. These benefits have been accounted for as part
      of total remuneration. However, the Commission has not yet investigated
      them or made any recommendations on their appropriateness. The
      Commission intends to conduct additional investigation on these elements
      of remuneration, and will report on them in due course.




REVIEW PROCESS




20.   The report then proceeds to describe the distinct but interrelated
      components of the review process the Commission has opted for.          These
      components are (a) job profiling and evaluation; (b) job grading; (c)
      benchmarking and (d) fixing appropriate pay levels. The logical end of the
      process would be the conversion of the reviewed pay structure into a
      transparent total remuneration system for all public office bearers.


21.   During the initial stage of information gathering the Commission appointed
      independent consultants, Deloitte & Touche, who gathered and collated
      data and thereafter reported on, amongst others matters:


  •   The nature and scope of each position in the relevant institutions.
  •   The purpose, duties, responsibilities, powers and activities attached to each
      position in the relevant institutions.



                                          13
  •   Existing conditions of services, salaries, allowances and other benefits
      before and after tax deductions.
  •   A proposed evaluation and grading of posts of all public office bearers.
  •   A comparison of posts with compatible positions in public administration, in
      organs of state, in state owned enterprises and within the private sector.
  •   A comparison of private sector pay line with public sector and public office
      bearers pay lines
  •   An ideal total remuneration salary system and a process to convert the
      existing remuneration structure(s) or system(s) to a total remuneration
      structure.


22.   In addition, the Commission held direct consultations with stakeholder
      representatives on job profiling, evaluation, grading and benchmarking. The
      Commission received written submissions from representatives of all three
      arms of government and the public. Further the Commission conducted its
      own research on additional domestic and international comparators. For
      instance, the Commission procured comparative data on remuneration
      levels of public office bearers in several countries where the economies are
      comparable in one way or the other to our own. This research took the
      form of desktop research and direct interactions with remuneration
      institutions in other democratic countries as well as the United Nations
      Secretariat.


23.   For ease of reference we depict in Table 3 below the broad review process
      the Commission followed through the relevant phases, activities and
      outcomes:




                                         14
Table 3: The review process and outcomes

    JOB EVALUATION                    JOB                BENCHMARKING                   TOTAL                   FINAL REPORT
                                    GRADING                                       REMUNERATION
                                                                                     PACKAGES
       Activities                    Activities              Activities               Activities                    Activities
• Structured interviews      •   Expert grading by    • Consider various        • Conceptualisation         • Draft report
• Submissions                    consultants            benchmarking options      and component             • Publication for
• Primary data research      •   Composite grading    • Private sector            design                      comment
• Analyse, assess and            tool                 • Public sector           • Pay level                 • Stakeholder road
  evaluate jobs              •   Compile draft        • State Owned               determination               shows
• Confirmatory                   grading tables         Enterprises                                         • Statutory
  consultations              •   Grading results      • International                                         consultations
                                 consultations with     comparatives                                        • Consider input
                                 stakeholders                                                               • Final report



       Outcomes                      Outcomes                Outcomes                 Outcomes                      Outcomes
• Comprehensive job          •   Vertically and       • Comparative ranges      • Total remuneration        • Stated philosophy for
  profiles for each office       horizontally           for fair remuneration     packages for all office     office bearer
  bearer position                integrated grading     options                   bearer positions            remuneration
• Established basis for          structures                                                                 • Comprehensive job
  grading                    •   Basis for                                                                    profiles
                                 benchmarking                                                               • Fair, transparent and
                                                                                                              flexible remuneration
                                                                                                              structure




JOB PROFILING AND EVALUATION



24.      The primary aim of job evaluation is to determine the “intrinsic” worth of a
         job, based on a systematic assessment of the degree of complexity of a
         job’s content and its requirements, and to do this independently of any pre-
         conceived standards of remuneration, and without regard to the qualities
         and performance of the actual personnel who perform the jobs.                                                Job
         evaluation examines the contents and requirements of jobs and measures
         these according to a standard procedure. This results in job grades, scores,
         levels or ratings whereby jobs can be compared with other jobs that have
         also been evaluated.                  Job evaluation therefore allows for a comparative
         analysis of jobs to be conducted.


25.      In this review, public office bearer roles were evaluated and later graded
         using the final role profiles that had been compiled in conjunction with and
         approved by stakeholder representatives from each group of public office
         bearers.




                                                            15
26.   The Commission considered the formulation of comprehensive job profiles
      for each public office bearer position as the critical starting point for the
      evaluation and review of the remuneration structure in respect of public
      office bearers. No job profiles existed at the start of this project.
      Comprehensive job profiles had to be drafted from scratch and agreed to by
      current incumbents in respect of every single public office bearer position.
      The Commission drafted the job profiles through a process of in depth
      consultation with    incumbents. Structured interviews were held with
      representatives from all office bearer groups, and applicable legislation was
      examined, in order to draft comprehensive job profiles. This process was
      completed in September 2005 when representatives of public office bearers
      confirmed that the job profiles were accurate and agreed that it would be in
      order for the Commission to use these job profiles as a basis for
      determining an appropriate remuneration grading structure for all public
      office bearers.   As is to be expected, the job profiles of all public office
      bearers are bulky and thus do not form part of this executive summary.
      They are attached to the main report as Annexure D.


JOB GRADING



27.   Job evaluation examines the contents and requirements of jobs and
      measures these according to a standard procedure. This results in job
      grades, scores, levels or ratings by which jobs can be compared with other
      jobs that have also been evaluated. Job grading is the rating of jobs
      according to a specifically planned procedure in order to determine the
      relative worth of each job. Once the extent of the job has been determined
      within the organisation, this job should be benchmarked against an agreed
      measure (such as market data or data from the public and other
      remuneration sectors) in order to determine the grade the job carries and
      the price that it commands in the open labour market. Job evaluation also
      allows for jobs to be related to each other in terms of their intrinsic worth,
      and hence to compare the relative complexities of different jobs and a
      rational job structure within an organisation.


                                         16
28.      The initial evaluation and grading of the profiled jobs was done and
         recommended to the Commission by the independent consultants, Deloitte
         & Touche. They made use of the four job evaluation systems:
     •   Peromnes, is arguably the most widely used job evaluation system in
         South Africa. It was originally developed in the 1960’s, and owned by FSA
         (a Human Resource Consultancy). Since the mid 1970’s, it has been
         extensively developed over time and was first offered as a computerised
         version in the mid 1990’s. It has a client base of 300 to 400 and supports
         an extensive salary survey which is part of the “National Remuneration
         Guide”13.
     •   Tuned Assessment of Skills and Knowledge (T.A.S.K.), developed by
         FSA in the early 1980’s, was designed to compete with the Paterson
         system, and accordingly has been mainly sold to Paterson users as a value
         added system. There is thus some market differentiation between TASK and
         Peromnes and in general they are not competing products, but they do
         provide the client with some choice. TASK is also available as a
         computerised version and in total has about 100 clients.
     •   Execeval, is an executive evaluation system originally developed from Hay
         principles and used exclusively as a consulting tool. The system has its own
         executive pay database to provide market remuneration for executive level
         positions (Peromnes grade 4 and higher). The system is not sold to clients,
         who in some cases are not even aware of its application in a consulting
         assignment. The client base numbers about 150.         The system is a very
         useful tool in the “market pricing” area of executive pay.
     •   Skills and Knowledge Analysis (SKAN), a competency based approach
         to job evaluation, is effectively a shell in which competency based grading
         and job family/skills descriptions may be incorporated. The system was
         developed in–house by the FSA-Contact IT team and has been used by a
         number of larger corporate clients.     It requires a project based approach
         where the Deloitte consultants and the client jointly develop the content of
         the system.

13
     Insert brief background information on The National Remuneration Guide.

                                            17
29.      On examining the recommendation of the consultants it became clear to
         the Commission that whilst these job grading methodologies may be useful
         in the open market place and perhaps as a starting point, a singular or “off-
         the-shelf” job evaluation system would not suffice. Public office bearer roles
         present complexities which may not be found in private sector roles. Public
         roles are supposed to advance public and not private interests. Their
         positions are premised on the values of stewardship and accountability to
         the citizenry as a whole. Their public responsibility and the wide ambit of
         the roles fall outside of traditional business-oriented perspectives.                                       In
         response to these concerns the consultants then used a combination of the
         methodologies in addition to the standard four job evaluation systems.
         Even so, the Peromnes system was used as a foundation for the evaluation
         and it uses the factors listed in Table 4 below to evaluate jobs.




Table 4: Peromnes job evaluation factors

      Factor                     Explanation
1     Problem Solving            Assesses the complexity of problems in the job by examining the clues or
                                 information available and the alternative solutions that can be applied.
2     Consequence of Judgement   Assesses the consequences of judgements, decisions and recommendations,
                                 i.e. the limits of discretion of the job.
3     Pressure of work           Assesses the pressures imposed on a job by:
                                 •      The variety and type of work to be achieved in the available time.
                                 •      The need to set priorities to do the most appropriate work at the most
                                        appropriate time.
                                 •      Interruptions and distractions due to inter-action with the needs of other
                                        jobs.

4     Knowledge                  Assesses the level of knowledge required to perform the tasks competently.
5     Job Impact                 Assesses the extent of influence that the job has on other activities, both within
                                 and outside the organisation.
6     Comprehension              Assesses the level of understanding of spoken and written communication
                                 required in the job.
7     Education                  Assesses the minimum education required of a competent incumbent for entry
                                 to the job.
8     Training / Experience      Assesses the typical period required to achieve competence in the job by the
                                 quickest reasonable route after the minimum education level assessed in factor
                                 7.
                                                                           (Deloitte & Touche; 2006)




                                                  18
30.    Table 5 below sets out the correlation amongst different job evaluation
       methodologies, with specific reference to the decision and task skills levels
       required at each level within those methodologies.




Table 5: Correlation Table – Equate, Paterson, Peromnes and Task Grades


Paterson   Paterson Peromnes Equates   Task     Decision Level                Task Skill Level
Grades     Bands    Grade    Grades    Grades
F4                  1++                26       • Top Management – Board
F3         FU       1+                 25             Level.
F2                  1        16        24       • Policy Making Decisions.
F1         FL       1        16        23
E4         EU       2        16        22       • Senior Management.
E3                  2        15        21       • Heads of Major Functions.
E2         EL       3        15        20       • Programming Decisions.
E1                  3        14        19
D5         DU       4        14        18       • Professionally Qualified    Tactical:
D4                  5        13        17              and Experienced        • Middle Management.
D3                  5        13        16              Specialist.            • High Level –
D2         DL       6        12        15       • Middle Management.                 Advisory /
D1                  7        11        14       • Interpretive Decisions.            Supervisory.

C5         CU      7         11        13       • Skilled, Technical and      Specialised:
C4                 8         10        12               Academically          • Skilled.
C3                 9         9         11               Qualified Employees   • Technical.
C2         CL      10        8         10       • Junior Specialists.         • Specialist.
C1                 11        7         9        • Supervisors.                • Senior Supervisory
                                                • Foremen.
                                                • Superintendents.
                                                • Routine or Process
                                                        Decisions.
B5         BU      11        7         8        • Discretionary / Operative   Discretionary:
B4                 12        6         7                Decisions.            • Semi-skilled
B3                 13        5         6                                      • General – Clerical /
B2         BL      13        5         5                                              Operational
B1                 14 / 15   4         4                                      • Junior Supervisory
A3         A       16        3         3        • Defined Decisions.          Basic:
A2                 17        2         2                                      Basic-skilled
A1                 18 / 19   1         1
                                                                       (Deloitte & Touche; 2006)


31.    At the end of their evaluation of job profiles of all public office bearers the
       independent consultants recommended to the Commission the grading
       results reflected in Annexure E, which is copied below for ease of
       reference.



                                                19
ANNEXURE E:                     PEROMNES GRADING RESULTS
Peromnes                                                                     Provincial          Local Government                             Traditional
           National Executive     National Assembly       NCOP                                                      Judiciary
Grade                                                                        Legislature         (Grade 6)                                    Leaders
    1++    • President
     1+    • Deputy President
      1                                                                                                             • Chief Justice
      2    • Minister             • Speaker               • Chairperson      • Premier                              • Deputy         Chief
                                                                                                                      Justice
                                                                                                                    • President          of
                                                                                                                      Supreme Court of
                                                                                                                      Appeal
    3      • Deputy Minister      • Leader of                                                                       • Judge      of    the
                                    Opposition                                                                        Constitutional
                                                                                                                      Court
                                                                                                                    • Deputy President
                                                                                                                      of the Supreme
                                                                                                                      Court of Appeal
                                                                                                                    • Judge      of    the
                                                                                                                      Supreme Court of
                                                                                                                      Appeal
                                                                                                                    • Judge President of
                                                                                                                      the High Court
                                                                                                                    • Deputy        Judge
                                                                                                                      President of the
                                                                                                                      High Court
    4                             • Deputy Speaker        • Deputy           • Speaker           • Executive        • Judge of the High
                                  • House Chair             Chairperson      • Leader       of     Mayor              Court
                                                          • House Chair        Opposition                           • Regional       Court
                                                                             • Member       of                        President
                                                                               Executive                            • Special       Grade
                                                                               Council                                Chief Magistrate
                                                                                                                    • President of the
                                                                                                                      Divorce Court
    5                             • Chief Whip:           • Chairperson of   • Deputy            • Deputy           • Chief Magistrate        • Chairperson:
                                    Majority Party          Select             Speaker             Executive        • Regional                  NHTL
                                  • Parliamentary           Committee                              Mayor              Magistrate              • King
                                    Counsel: President                                           • Mayor
                                  • Parliamentary
                                    Counsel: Deputy
                                    President
                                  • Chairperson of
                                    Portfolio Committee
                                  • Chair of Joint
                                    Monitoring
                                    Committee




                                                                             20
6    • Deputy Chief Whip:    • Deputy             • Chairperson of      • Speaker      /   • Senior Magistrate      • Deputy
       Majority Party          Chairperson   of     Committees            Chairperson                                 Chairperson
     • Deputy Chief Whip:      Select             • Deputy              • Deputy Mayor                                : NHTL
       Largest Minority        Committee            Chairperson of
     • Leaders of Minority   • Chief Whip           Committees
       Parties                                    • Chairperson of
                                                    Portfolio
                                                    Committee
7    • Whip                  • Programming        • Chief     Whip:     • Member      of   • District Magistrate    • Chairperson
     • Member                  Whip                 Majority Party        Executive        • Presiding Officer of     : PHTL
                             • Provincial Whip    • Deputy     Chief      Council            the Divorce Courts
                             • Permanent            Whip: Majority      • Chairperson of
                               Delegates            Party                 Sub Council
                                                  • Chief     Whip:     • Member      of
                                                    Largest               Mayoral
                                                    Minority              Committee
                                                  • Leaders        of
                                                    Minority Parties
8                                                 • Whip                                                            • Deputy
                                                                                                                      Chairperson
                                                                                                                      : PHTL
9                                                 • Member         of   • Whip                                      • Member of
                                                    Provincial                                                        NHTL
                                                    Legislature                                                     • Senior
                                                                                                                      Traditional
                                                                                                                      Leader
10                                                                      • Municipal                                 • Headman
                                                                          Councillor                                • Member of
                                                                                                                      PHTL




                                                  21
32.   These grading results were however compiled mainly with reference to
      Peromnes factors and were considered to be inappropriate in some
      instances. After a direct consultation with all stakeholders it became even
      clearer that the Peromnes methodology alone was not well suited for the
      evaluation and grading of public office bearer positions. The Commission
      thereafter developed a grading structure which we believe to be more
      appropriate. Following the establishment of comprehensive and accepted
      job profiles for all public office bearer positions, the Commission graded all
      public office bearer positions into a hierarchical structure that is both
      vertically and horizontally integrated, fair and equitable.    The proposed
      grading structure was discussed with all public office bearer groups at
      communication events during December 2005, at which valuable input was
      gathered for consideration in the Commission’s final review report.      After
      due consideration of all input and other factors, the Commission has
      drafted a proposed grading structure for all public office bearer positions as
      set out in Annexure I.


33.   Annexure F sets out the consolidated grading tables in respect of:
  •   Current grading tables;
  •   Consultants’ grading recommendations; and
  •   Updated grading tables reflecting stakeholder input.




                                        22
ANNEXURE F: COMPARATIVE GRADING TABLES
GROUP                                    CURRENT GRADING TABLES                                                             PEROMNES GRADING RESULTS                                                                            STAKEHOLDER INPUT

              Grade   Position                       Position                     Position   Grade   Position                            Position               Position                 Grade   Position                          Position               Position

                      National                       Provincial                   Local              National                            Provincial             Local                            National                          Provincial             Local


Executive     H       President                                                              1++     President                                                                           1++     President

              G       Deputy President                                                       1+      Deputy President                                                                    1+      Deputy President

              F       Minister                                                               1                                                                                           1

                                                                                             2       Minister                                                                            2       Minister

              E1      Deputy Minister                                                        3       Deputy Minister                                                                     3       Deputy Minister

Legislature   F       Speaker: NA                    Premier                                 3       Speaker: NA                         Premier                                         2       Speaker: NA                       Premier


                      Chairperson: NCOP                                                              Chairperson: NCOP                                                                           Chairperson: NCOP

              E1      Deputy Speaker                 MEC                                             Leader of Opposition                                                                3

                      Deputy Chairperson: NCOP       Speaker                                 4       Deputy Speaker                                             Executive Mayor          4       Deputy Speaker                    Speaker                Executive Mayor

              E2      Leader of the Opposition                                                       Deputy Chairperson: NCOP                                                                    Deputy Chairperson: NCOP          MEC

                      PC: President                                                                  House Chairperson                                                                           House Chairperson
                      Chief Whip: Majority Party                                             5       PC: President                       Deputy Speaker         Mayor                    5       Leader of Opposition              Leader of Opposition   Mayor
                      Chief Whip: NCOP                                                               PC: Deputy President                                       Deputy Executive Mayor           PC: President                     Deputy Speaker         Deputy Executive Mayor
              D       PC: Deputy President           Deputy Speaker                                  Chief Whip: Majority Party                                                                  PC: Deputy President
                      House Chairperson                                                              Chairperson of a Committee                                                                  Chief Whip: Majority Party
              C1      Chairperson of a Committee     Chief Whip: Majority Party              6       Deputy Chief Whip: Majority Party   Chair of Committees    Speaker / Chairperson            Chairperson of a Committee

                      Chief Whip: Largest Minority                                                   Chief Whip: Largest Minority        Deputy Chair of
              C2      Party                          Leader of Opposition                            Party                               Committees             Deputy Mayor                     Chief Whip: NCOP

                      Deputy Chief Whip: Majority                                                                                        Chairperson of a                                        Deputy Chief Whip: Majority
                      Party                          Chair of Committees                             Leader of a Minority Party          Committee                                       6       Party                             Chair of Committees    Speaker / Chairperson

                                                     Chairperson of a                                                                                                                            Chief Whip: Largest Minority      Deputy Chair of
                      Deputy Chair of a Committee    Committee                                       Chief Whip: NCOP                                                                            Party                             Committees             Deputy Mayor

                                                     Chief Whip: Largest                                                                 Chief Whip: Majority                                                                      Chairperson of a
              B       Leader of a Minority Party     Minority Party                          7       Whip                                Party                  MEC                              Leader of a Minority Party        Committee

                                                     Deputy Chief Whip:                                                                  Deputy Chief Whip:     Chairperson of a sub-                                              Chief Whip: Majority
                      Whip                           Majority Party                                  Member: NA                          Majority Party         council                                                            Party

                                                     Deputy Chair of                                                                     Chief Whip: Largest                                                                       Deputy Chief Whip:
                                                     Committees                                      Permanent Delegate: NCOP            Minority Party                                  7       Whip                              Majority Party         MEC

                                                     Leader: Provincial                                                                  Leader of a Minority                                                                      Chief Whip: Largest
              A1      Member: NA                     Legislature                                                                         Party                                                   Member: NA                        Minority Party         Member of a Mayoral Council

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   Leader of a Minority
                      Permanent Delegate: NCOP       Leader of a Minority Party              8                                           Whip                                                    Permanent Delegate: NCOP          Party                  Chairperson of a sub-council


                                                     Whip                                    9                                           MPL                    Whip                                                               PC to a King



                                                                                                                                                                Member of a Mayoral
                                                                                                                                                                Council                  8                                         Whip                   Whip




              A2                                     MPL                                     10                                                                 Municipal Councillor     9                                         MPL                    Municipal Councillor




                                                                                                                                         23
GROUP                                     CURRENT GRADING TABLES                                             PEROMNES GRADING RESULTS                                                             STAKEHOLDER INPUT

              Grade   Position                        Position     Position   Grade   Position                            Position              Position   Grade   Position                          Position              Position

                      National                        Provincial   Local              National                            Provincial            Local              National                          Provincial            Local

Judiciary             Chief Justice                                           1       Chief Justice                                                        1       Chief Justice
                      Deputy Chief Justice                                    2       Deputy Chief Justice                                                 2       Deputy Chief Justice

                      President: SCA                                                  President: SCA                                                               President: SCA
                                                                                                                                                                   Judge of the Constitutional
                      Deputy President: SCA                                   3       Judge of the Constitutional Court                                    3       Court

                      Judge of the Constitutional
                      Court                                                           Deputy President: SCA                                                        Deputy President: SCA

                      Judge of the SCA                                                Judge of the SCA                                                             Judge of the SCA
                      Judge President of a High                                                                                                                    Judge President of a High
                      Court                                                           Judge President of a High Court                                              Court
                      Judge President of a Labour                                     Judge President of a Labour                                                  Judge President of a Labour
                      Court                                                           Court                                                                        Court
                      Deputy Judge President of a                                     Deputy Judge President of a High                                             Deputy Judge President of a
                      High Court                                                      Court                                                                        High Court

                      Deputy Judge President of a                                     Deputy Judge President of a                                                  Deputy Judge President of a
                      Labour Court                                                    Labour Court                                                                 Labour Court


                      Judge of a High Court                                   4       Judge of a High Court                                                4       Judge of a High Court
                      Judge of a Labour Court                                         Judge of a Labour Court                                                      Judge of a Labour Court

                      Special Grade Chief                                                                                                                          Special Grade Chief
                      Magistrate                                                      Special Grade Chief Magistrate                                               Magistrate


                      Regional Court President                                        Regional Court President                                                     Regional Court President
                      Chief Magistrate                                                President of a Divorce Court                                                 President of a Divorce Court
                      Regional Magistrate                                     5       Regional Magistrate                                                  5       Regional Magistrate

                      Senior Magistrate                                               Chief Magistrate                                                             Chief Magistrate
                                                                                                                                                                   Presiding Officer: Divorce
                                                                              6       Senior Magistrate                                                            Court

                                                                              7       Magistrate                                                           6       Senior Magistrate

                      Magistrate                                                      Presiding Officer: Divorce Court                                     7       Magistrate



Traditional           King                                                    5       King                                                                 5       King

Leadership            Paramount Chief                                                 Chairperson: NHTL                                                            Chairperson: NHTL

                      Chairperson: NHTL                                       6       Deputy Chairperson: NHTL                                             6       Deputy Chairperson: NHTL




                      Deputy Chairperson: NHTL                                7                                           Chairperson: PHTL                7                                         Chairperson: PHTL
                                                                                                                          Deputy Chairperson:                                                        Deputy Chairperson:
                      Full time Chairperson: PHTL                             8                                           PHTL                             8       Member: NHTL                      PHTL
                      Full time Deputy Chairperson:
                      PHTL                                                    9       Member: NHTL                                                         9       Senior Traditional Leader         Member: PHTL

                      Chief                                                           Senior Traditional Leader                                            10                                                              Headman
                      Part time Chairperson: PHTL                             10                                          Member: PHTL          Headman

                      Part time Deputy
                      Chairperson: PHTL
                      Part time Member: NHTL
                      Part time Member: PHTL




                                                                                                                          24
BENCHMARKING



34.   A benchmark is a standard for setting or measuring pay levels accross
      institution. This process of identifying and fixing a point of reference for
      setting institutional pay levels is sometimes referred to as “anchoring”. As
      is to be expected, organisational benchmarks differ inasmuch as pay
      targets   vary   from   institution   to   institution.   This    is   due   to   the
      appropriateness    of   any   benchmark      depending    on     the   remuneration
      philosophy of the organisation which is reflective of its objectives, strategy,
      size and organisational values. In other words a remuneration strategy is
      often responsive to specific organisational needs.


35.   One option in benchmarking is to utilise an anchor position. The purpose of
      an anchor position is to allow for an analytical focus on a particular job
      grade in order to build the entire compensation system around it. As such
      the job grading should allow an easily comparable set of skills and a
      sufficient number of subjects to allow an objective comparison and
      statistical stability in the number of data-points. The role of the anchor
      should not be so specialised and unique that it does not easily enable
      comparison to any other job. Moreover, if there is only one incumbent in
      the anchor position, the set of skills, requirements and capacities are so
      rare that they do not lend themselves to easy comparison with any other
      comparable private or public sector roles. This adds unnecessary instability
      and subjectivity to the remuneration determination process. It would make
      sense to set the anchor where it has the highest financial impact. Although
      the President has the highest salary, the decision around his pay in and of
      its own does not have the highest impact on the fiscus. The weight of
      numbers at the lower levels of the legislatures, albeit at a lower salary
      level, has a much higher impact.




                                            25
36.   It is clear that international best practice, as gathered during the
      Commission’s international comparative studies, is not to use the position
      of the President as the anchor. This is due to the political issues and
      sensitivities attached to this position.


37.   Where the anchor is set at the lower level, the nominal increment over and
      above this could easily be linked to specific performance requirements.
      Although the Commission does not believe that such a system could be
      implemented currently, it is certainly its aim to move towards such
      anchoring in future, when unfortunate issues destabilising the lower level
      positions have been resolved.


38.   Choosing an anchor position involves the following mechanical steps:
  •   Defining the role;
  •   Getting appropriate benchmarks;
  •   Determining the anchor salary;
  •   Reviewing the percentage gaps; and
  •   Applying the percentage gaps through the grading scale.


39.   In the private sector, the market, or the percentile within the market, that
      the organisation agrees to be compared to, determine pay levels. Once an
      organisation has chosen the comparator market it has to decide how long
      and how much it wants to be ahead or behind the market pay line and how
      it will manage future pay increases.


40.   The consultants to the Commission recommended that the public office
      bearers pay benchmark should be market related.        They explained that
      each state institution should implement a job grading system that provides
      an accurate link to the target market and associated market data. To this
      end they suggested two different benchmarking methodologies - a “Graded
      Benchmarking Methodology” and a “Graded Pay Relativity Methodology”.



                                          26
41.   Before examining each of the benchmarking methods suggested by the
      consultants, it is appropriate to note the graph below which illustrates the
      pay differences across the institutional pay landscape in South Africa. The
      pay analysis is premised on the Peromnes system. The pay levels in the
      graph reflect guaranteed pay exclusive of discretionary performance
      incentives.


Figure 4: Pay Analysis across Continuum




      1 600 000
      1 400 000
      1 200 000                                           Private Sector
      1 000 000                                           Public Sector
        800 000                                           State Owned
        600 000                                           Parastatal
        400 000
                                                          NGO
        200 000
            -
                    1   3     5     7    9     11
                            Peromnes Grade

                                             (Deloitte & Touche, 2006)


42.   The “Graded Benchmarking Methodology” entails the use of job evaluation
      results to benchmark positions on a job grade basis.        The Commission’s
      consultants used graded remuneration tables from the Deloitte National
      Remuneration Guide (September 2005) as the basis for determining
      remuneration levels on a job grade basis, for purposes of comparison with
      the private sector.   Therefore the comparator market will be the national
      private sector remuneration market. In their view a grid size “E” private
      sector organisation was considered to be the most appropriate market
      comparator for public office bearer positions and was used to determine the
      graded tables to be used for comparator purposes in this methodology. A
      grid size “E” organisation has the following characteristics:
  •   staff numbers of between 500 and 800.
                                      27
  •     a total cost of employment salary bill of between R109 million and R223
        million.
  •     total assets of between R400 million and R800 million; and
  •     typical annual pre-tax profits of between R29 million and R59 million.


43.     Table 6 and Figure 3 below have been aged to April 2007 to ensure that
        the comparison is relative to the where the national market pay position
        was located in April 2007.


Table 6: Graded table for grid size E organisation: April 2007



      Peromnes Grade           Total Package Graded Table
            1                                   1 639 260
            2                                   1 237 220
            3                                     993 784
            4                                     704 767
            5                                     531 919
            6                                     437 823
            7                                     353 345
            8                                     268 011
            9                                     225 136
           10                                     181 091
                (Deloitte & Touche; 2007)

Figure 3: Graded graph for grid size E organisation: April 2007

 1800000
 1600000
 1400000
 1200000
 1000000                                                              Total Package
  800000                                                              Graded Table
  600000
  400000
  200000
       0
                1      2   3     4     5    6    7     8    9    10


                                                       (Deloitte & Touche; 2007)




                                                                28
44.     The other anchoring option proposed to the Commission is known as the
        “Graded Pay Relativity Methodology”.                   It proposes determining an anchor
        public office bearer pay line relative to the private sector. All public office
        bearer positions are then located relative to this determined pay line on a
        graded basis.            This relativity will then be applied on an annual basis for
        benchmarking purposes. The process methodology is as follows:
  •    Create a commercially oriented pay curve from Peromnes 10 through to
       Peromnes 1++.
  •    Determine the discount to commercial pay that is to be applied at Peromnes
       1++ to establish an anchor pay point.
  •    From Peromnes 4 to Peromnes 1++ create a target pay curve that is
       anchored by the Peromnes 1++ pay point.                       This will be identified as the
       public office bearers pay curve.
  •    From the pay data that underpins the consolidated pay curve establish the
       pay relativity between Peromnes 1++ and all other Peromnes grades.


45.     Figure 5 below illustrates the public office bearer pay curve relative to the
        national market, in terms of the Graded Pay Relativity Methodology, as was
        recommended to the Commission by its consultants, based on the grading
        results contained in Annexure E.


Figure 5: April 2007 pay curves
 Total Guaranteed Package
      5 000 000
                                                                           Grid A
      4 500 000

      4 000 000                                                            Grid C

      3 500 000                                                            Grid E

      3 000 000
                                                                           Grid G
      2 500 000
                                                                           Grid I
      2 000 000

      1 500 000                                                            Peromnes 1++, CEO K

      1 000 000
                                                                           Peromnes 1+, CEO J
       500 000
                                                                           Commercial Base Curve
            -
                  1++   1+   1   2     3   4   5   6   7   8    9   10     POB Base line

                                     Peromnes Grade

                                                       (Deloitte & Touche; 2006)
                                                       29
46.   Following this methodology the public office bearer pay curve has been
      determined relative to an anchor position as indicated in Table 10 below.
      On this table the anchor of the public office bearer pay line is presumed to
      be the President.   The Peromnes1++ position of the President has been
      anchored at a 50% discount to the commercially oriented pay curve (the
      commercial base curve). Several observations can be made from these pay
      curves. First, public office bearers in Peromnes grades 4 to 10 appear to be
      paid in line or slightly above the market (the commercial base curve).
      Second, office bearers graded from 4 to 1++ (the President) are
      remunerated at a substantial discount to market. On the ideal public office
      bearer base line on the graph in Figure 5 the discount is 50% to
      commercial rates. But in actual terms the discount is about 75% because in
      fact the President earns a little over a million rand and not over two million
      as the public office bearer base line projects.



Table 10: Public office bearer pay line relative to an anchor position


Peromnes     Commercial pay Public office        Relativity to
grade        base curve      bearers pay line    overall anchor
   1++             4 224 000        2 112 000         100%
    1+             3 100 462        1 722 479          82%
     1             1 983 147        1 332 098          63%
     2             1 401 168        1 089 797          52%
     3               989 970          879 973          42%
     4               699 452          660 594          31%
     5               494 186          494 186          23%
     6               412 707          412 707          20%
     7               332 761          332 761          16%
     8               252 639          252 639          12%
     9               209 780          209 780          10%
    10               170 543          170 543          8%
                                       (Deloitte & Touche; 2006)




                                         30
COMPARATIVE REMUNERATION TABLES


47.     As we stated earlier, the private sector pay curves serve an instructive role,
        but it is important to keep in mind that they are only one class of possible
        benchmarks.          There     are       indeed   other   domestic      and       international
        comparators.        During      2006        the    Commission         conducted        further
        benchmarking exercises with reference to the total remuneration paid to
        senior executives in the South African public service, in government
        institutions supporting constitutional democracy and in state owned entities
        or enterprises. Table 7 and Table 8 below set out the total remuneration
        packages of senior public executives used for benchmarking comparisons.



Table 7: Total remuneration for senior public executives: January 2007


      Position                                            Total salary package
      Governor of the Reserve Bank                                            2 830 000
      Auditor General                                                         1 708 600
      National Director of Public Prosecutions                                  984 072
      Public Protector                                                          950 000
      Director General                                            922   491   – 993 492
      Deputy Director-General                                     717   045   – 772 173
      Chief Director                                              591   510   – 636 939
      Director                                                    502   725   – 541 284




                                                    31
Table 8: Remuneration packages: CEO’s of State Owned Entities: 2006

 Organisation                                     Guaranteed           Performance     Total
                                                  Portion              Reward          Remuneration
 Transnet                                              4   009   000      2 886   000      6 895 000
 South African Airways                                 5   000   000      1 850   000      6 850 000
 Denel                                                 3   129   000      3 125   000      6 254 000
 Telkom                                                2   160   422      3 442   573      5 602 995
 Eskom                                                 4   250   000        952   000      5 202 000
 Industrial Development Corporation                    3   185   328      1 682   861      4 870 000
 Land Bank                                             2   006   040      1 000   000      3 006 040
 PetroSA                                               1   962   000        850   000      2 812 000
 Council for Industrial and Scientific Research        1   704   000        847   000      2 551 000
 Central Energy Fund                                   1   456   000         33   000      1 501 000
 South African Tourism                                 1   220   899      1 435   399      1 435 399
 SABC (8 months)                                       1   487   000                0      1 487 000
 Financial Services Board (9 months)                   1   652   011          172 533      1 824 544
 Post Office (8 months)                                1   440   000                0      1 440 000
 Public Investment Commission                          1   883   000           58 000      1 940 000
 Independent Development Trust                         1   420   000          183 000      1 603 000
 International Marketing Council                       1   354   000          185 000      1 539 000
 National Empowerment Fund                             1   287   740          637 500      1 400 000
 National Lotteries Board                                  910   000          174 000      1 078 000
 FAIS Ombudsman                                            909   500                0        909 500
                                                                                 (2006 Annual Reports)

48.   The Commission had the benefit of comparative data to be found in Table
      12 below.         It relates to known salaries of other heads of state or
      government.         It may be added that only a few countries disclose
      remuneration arrangements of heads of state to the public or to officials of
      other governments, as the Commission quickly found out. The data does
      not in itself constitute dependable comparators. Firstly, often the salaries
      disclosed are a poor catalogue of the entire remuneration package of heads
      of state.    Secondly, the varying social, economic and political contexts in
      these countries make direct remuneration level comparison less optimal.
      One of the ways, however, to compare remuneration paid to Heads of State
      is to compare their relative salaries to the respective countries’ Gross
      Domestic Product (GDP), the latter which is a measure of the size of the
      economy of a country and an indicator of the standard of living in the
      country. The ratio GDP / US $ value basic salary expresses the number of
      times GDP is higher than the basic salary of the Head of State, and is used
      as a basis for comparing like with like.



                                                  32
Table 12: Comparative Heads of State Remuneration

COUNTRY           CURRENCY           BASIC           EXCHANGE RATE              BASIC SALARY          % RELATIVE     GDP **             Ratio of GDP/
                                     SALARY          AS ON 04/12/06             IN SA RAND            TO SA          (US $ mil)         Basic Salary

South Africa      Rand                 1 181   438   1   :   1                        1   181   438   100.00                  234 419            1.42
USA               US Dollar              400   000   1   :   7.17                     2   868   000   242.76               12 455 825           31.14
United Kingdom    Pound                  183   932   1   :   14.11                    2   595   280   219.67                2 229 472            6.16
Australia         Aus Dollar             190   320   1   :   5.66                     1   077   211   91.18                   708 519            4.71
Finland           Euro                 1 458   000   1   :   9.50                    13   851   000   1 172.38                196 053            0.10
Canada            Can Dollar             294   000   1   :   6.27                     1   843   380   156.03                1 132 436            4.40
Germany           Euro                   291   000   1   :   9.50                     2   764   500   233.99                2 791 737            7.24
Nigeria           Naira                7 400   000   1   :   0.057                        421   800   35.70                    99 147            1.69
Botswana     *    Pula                   332   460   1   :   1.17                         388   978   32.92                    10 196            0.19
Indonesia    *    Rupiah             750 000   000   1   :   0.0007                       525   000   44.43                   281 264            3.84
*        Excludes amount of remunerative benefits and daily allowances, which cannot be calculated accurately.
**       International Monetary Fund, World Economic Outlook Database, September 2006




49.      Table 9 below reflects the current remuneration levels 1 to 12 in respect of
         public servants in South Africa, as at January 2007. These levels constitute
         public servants from entry level to that of a Deputy Director, which is the
         highest non-managerial level.


Table 9: Public service remuneration: January 2007


                                                             SALARY LEVEL
                                                                                                                     Inclusive
                                           Salary notches                                                           packages
     1      2        3           4         5        6                 7          8              9        10        11         12

35,916   40,227   46,200       54,222    64,143      79,407       98,916       122,841    146,685     183,084    286,203    339,825
36,273   40,632   46,665       54,765    64,785      80,208       99,903       124,074    148,143     184,911    289,068    343,224
36,633   41,034   47,133       55,311    65,433      81,006       100,905      125,319    149,628     186,762    291,957    346,659
36,999   41,445   47,607       55,863    66,087      81,822       101,913      126,567    151,128     188,634    294,879    350,127
37,365   41,865   48,078       56,424    66,747      82,635       102,933      127,836    152,640     190,515    297,831    353,631
37,740   42,282   48,561       56,985    67,413      83,463       103,959      129,108    154,167     192,423    300,813    357,168
38,115   42,699   49,050       57,558    68,088      84,297       105,000      130,401    155,706     194,349    303,822    360,741
38,496   43,131   49,539       58,131    68,769      85,137       106,050      131,703    157,263     196,287    306,861    364,350
38,880   43,560   50,034       58,713    69,459      85,992       107,109      133,023    158,835     198,252    309,933    367,995
39,273   43,992   50,532       59,304    70,152      86,853       108,180      134,349    160,419     200,235    313,032    371,676
39,660   44,439   51,039       59,895    70,854      87,720       109,260      135,693    162,027     202,236    316,161    375,393
40,059   44,883   51,552       60,492    71,562      88,593       110,358      137,049    163,647     204,261    319,323    379,149
                  52,062       61,098    72,279      89,484       111,459      138,420    165,285     206,301    322,521    382,944
                  52,584       61,707    73,002      90,378       112,575      139,806    166,938     208,365    325,749    386,772
                  53,109       62,325    73,731      91,281       113,703      141,204    168,606     210,447    329,007    390,642
                  53,640       62,946    74,472      92,193       114,843      142,617    170,295     212,550    332,298    394,554
                                         75,216                   116,154                 171,813
                                                                                          177,198
                                                                                                      (www.dpsa.gov.za)




                                                                          33
TOTAL PACKAGE COMPARISONS TO MARKET



50.     Figure 11 below indicates the comparison between the current total
        remuneration paid to members of Parliament to that of a comparable level
        in the private sector. In the graph, the blue line represents the actual total
        packages for members of the National Parliament against the Graded
        Market Total Package data (pink) and the public office bearer base line total
        package (yellow).    In many instances, and especially towards the lower
        levels, the market pay levels (total package) are below the actual total
        packages of public office bearers.



Figure 11: Parliament Total Package comparison to Market




  1 400 000
  1 200 000                                                        Actual Total Package
  1 000 000
   800 000                                                         Graded Market Total
      600 000                                                      Package
      400 000                                                      POB Base Line Total
      200 000                                                      Package

            0
                    2 3 4 4 5 5 5       5 5 6 6 6 7 7
                             Peromnes Grade

                                                                (Deloitte & Touche; 2006)


51.     Figure 15 below highlight the comparison between the current Provincial
        Legislature upper limits (notch 2) and market information. Based on the
        Peromnes grades and the market data for those grades, most members in
        the Provincial Legislature in the lower levels are being paid above the
        market rate.




                                             34
Figure 15: Provincial Legislature Total Package comparison to Market




  R 1 500 000

  R 1 000 000                                          Total Package


      R 500 000                                        Graded Market Total
                                                       Package
           R0                                          POB Base Line Total
                  2 4 4 4 5 6 6 6 7 7 7 7 8 9          Package

                        Peromnes Grade


                                                 (Deloitte & Touche; 2006)



52.     Based on the grading and market data per grade, as reflected in Figure 18
        below, the executive mayor / mayor and the deputy executive mayor /
        mayor of a grade 6 municipal structure are close to the national market
        rates when considering the total package cost figures.               All other public
        office bearer positions in this municipal structure appear to be significantly
        overpaid compared to the suggested market comparators.


53.     The Commission has not developed any remuneration table, ratios, or pay
        curve for public office bearer positions in local government, because of the
        major remuneration review that was conducted in 2006 and resulted in the
        determination of remuneration levels in local government in June 2006.


54.     The Commission therefore only recommends an annual cost-of-living
        adjustment to the total remuneration of members of local government
        institutions.




                                                35
Figure 18: Local Government Total Package comparison to Market


  R 800 000
  R 600 000                                                    Total Package
  R 400 000
                                                               Graded Market Total
  R 200 000                                                    Package
          R0                                                   POB Base Line Total
                   4       5    5 6 6 7 7 7       9 10         Package
                                 Peromnes Grade


                                                         (Deloitte & Touche; 2006)


55.     Figure 20 below compares current traditional leadership remuneration with
        salaries paid to comparable positions in the market.             One must instantly
        add that because of the unique and rare character of traditional leadership
        it has been difficult to find an effective grading method and useful domestic
        comparators.


56.     Based on the Peromnes grades arrived at on the terms in the written job
        profiles and compared with market data, the comparative ratios above
        indicate that remuneration levels for total packages appear to be below the
        market rates.


Figure 20: Traditional Leader remuneration comparison to Market


      Rand
 600 000
 500 000
 400 000
                                                       Total Package
 300 000
 200 000                                               Graded Market Total
 100 000                                               Package
 0                                                     POB Base Line Total
               5       5       6 7 8 9 9 10 10         Package
                               Peromnes Grade

                                            (Deloitte & Touche; 2006)

                                                  36
57.        The next market comparison relates to the judiciary. To enhance public
           confidence in the independence of the judiciary it is necessary to remove
           any     perception         of   politicization        from     the     establishment        of   judicial
           compensation.


58.        Figures 23 and 24 below show the comparison of current judicial total
           remuneration packages with that of the comparable market. There is a
           clear lag in the upper levels of judicial remuneration compared to the
           market, which undoubtedly has a negative effect on any successful
           recruitment and retention objectives in the judiciary.                               It must also be
           explained that the market data used for comparison is based on Peromnes
           grading and relates to national remuneration pay levels in the private
           sector.        The Commission requested the General Council of the Bar,
           Statistics      SA     and      the    South       African      Revenue          Services   to   furnish
           remuneration levels or trends of advocates, and in particular senior
           counsel, but have not been furnished with details relating to such salary
           levels or trends.            The Commission has however been advised that the
           average monthly income of senior counsel varies between R100 000 and
           R300 000.14 It is a widely recognised fact that the net earnings of senior
           counsel practising at the bar are many times a judge’s total remuneration.
           It follows that senior counsel and other senior legal practitioners, and not
           the national private sector trends, are the ideal comparator group.


59.        Remuneration linked to role complexity and attraction and retention
           strategies may attract premiums. This is more acutely so where the source
           pool for these positions is located in private practice, and where there is a
           general scarcity in the market of available talent. Most of the potential
           candidates for recruitment to judicial positions are either senior advocates
           or senior legal practitioners who are high earners already.




14
     This information was furnished by the Secretary of Advocates for Transformation KZN.
                                                            37
Figure 23: Judiciary Total Remuneration comparison to Market




  2 000 000
                                                       Total Package
  1 500 000
                                                       Graded Market Total
  1 000 000                                            Package
      500 000                                          POB Base Line Total
                                                       Package
            0
                    1   2   2 3 3 3 3 3       4
                            Peromnes Grade


                                              (Deloitte & Touche; 2006)




Figure 24: Magistracy Total Remuneration comparison to Market




  700 000
  600 000                                         Total Package
  500 000
  400 000                                         Graded Market Total
  300 000                                         Package
  200 000                                         POB Base Line Total
  100 000                                         Package
  0
                4   4    4 5 5 6 7       7
                        Peromnes Grade


                                              (Deloitte & Touche; 2006)



PAY LEVELS OF REMUNERATION PACKAGES


60.     Keeping this benchmarking methodology and data in mind, later in this
        summary the Commission identifies the remuneration philosophy it prefers,
        and recommends actual pay levels of remuneration packages.           It is

                                             38
      important that the correct pay levels are set for each institution, as this will
      ultimately determine a target rate of pay for every public office bearer that
      is employed by the institution. If the target pay levels for the public office
      bearers are too high the various institutions will run the risk of overpaying
      and creating an unnecessary financial burden, and if target levels of pay
      are too low the various institutions will run the risk of losing critical skills,
      or not being able to recruit critical skills. It is important to establish pay
      levels, and a pay line for the relevant institution, with the additional aims of
      pay line consistency and aspiration to higher levels in mind.


61.   Even more importantly, the pay levels of those who serve in the public
      domain, as distinct from those in the private sector, must sit comfortably
      with the kind of society our Constitution seeks to build. Their pay levels
      must strike an equitable balance between enhancing clean, democratic
      governance by attracting and retaining excellent skills, on the one side of
      the scale, and what the public purse can fairly bear, on the other.


STAKEHOLDER AND PUBLIC COMMENT




62.   In no time it became clear that the review of remuneration arrangements
      had to assume an interactive character. Those who were to be affected by
      the recommendations were entitled to an adequate opportunity to be heard
      through appropriate representation. Also the process had to be open. Its
      deliberations had to be inclusive of all public office bearers and responsive
      to different viewpoints. Once the methodology had been chosen, the
      Commission engaged with public office bearers on virtually each of the
      review     steps   save   for   the   final   process   of   recommending   actual
      remuneration levels. It also became clear that the Commission had to take
      into account submissions by the broader public beyond the realm of office
      bearers.




                                             39
63.      In a further chapter the Commission reports on its interaction with public
         office bearers and the public. In relation to office bearers the interaction
         assumed         three       forms:       initial     interviews         with     chosen        independent
         consultants, consultations with the Commission and its staff, and written
         submissions. The principal features of the written submissions received
         from members of the executive, the legislature, the judiciary and traditional
         leaders have been recorded. The chapter also lists the submissions received
         from the public on invitation by the Commission15.


64.      As we have suggested earlier, the reports by the consultants included
         extensive submissions made to them by different stakeholders. However,
         the Commission did not rely solely on these consultants’ reports and
         submissions for the purpose of drafting its recommendations.                                                The
         Commission received several written submissions directly from public office
         bearers or their appointed representatives. It also arranged ‘road-shows’
         at which it met with and received oral submissions from public office
         bearers or their delegates drawn from all arms of government. This
         interaction was appropriate as these public office bearers are likely to be
         affected by the recommendations of the Commission. At the profiling and
         grading stages of the process the Commission had direct consultation with
         all stakeholders with a view to benefiting from their views before
         proceeding to benchmarking and the determination of pay levels.




SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE THREE ARMS OF GOVERNMENT




65.      In addition to the direct engagements with stakeholder groups, the
         Commission posed a list of philosophical and fundamental questions to each
         of the three arms of government for consideration and response. The
         Commission is indebted to the institutions for their high quality and
15
  In order to facilitate public participation, the Commission issued an invitation to the public to make submissions on the
salaries, allowances and benefits of public office bearers The invitation was published in the Government Gazette no 28312
dated 08 December 2005.
                                                            40
      valuable submissions in this regard. The essence of the principles alluded to
      in each of those submissions is recorded below.


NATIONAL EXECUTIVE



66.   Cabinet assigned a group of Ministers, headed by the Minister of Finance, to
      consider a list of questions posed to it by the Commission, and to draft a
      response thereto. In its submission to the Commission, the following five
      guiding principles were proposed in respect of the restructuring of a public
      office bearer remuneration dispensation:


  •   All public office bearers should receive fair and equitable remuneration in
      accordance with their respective responsibilities.
  •   The remuneration structure should be clear and transparent to facilitate
      comparisons both within and across institutions.
  •   The public service Senior Management Service (SMS) should be used as a
      benchmark for the determination of public office bearer remuneration.
  •   The remuneration of the President should be the overall anchor for a public
      office bearer remuneration structure.
  •   Proposed adjustments should be clearly and carefully motivated, and should
      be linked to identified deficiencies in the present structure.


67.   The submission suggested that the position of the President should be the
      overall anchor position for the public office bearer remuneration and that
      anchor positions for each branch of government should be related to it. The
      suggested institutional anchors should be:
  •   Judiciary: Chief Justice
  •   Legislature: Speaker of the National Assembly


68.   The submission further suggests that simple benchmarking against either
      public or private sector positions would not be appropriate, but that it
      would be useful to compare political office bearer remuneration with that of
      Senior Management Service (SMS) members in the public service. Total
                                   41
      Remuneration packages should therefore be developed for public office
      bearers that incorporate all of the components available to SMS members.


69.   The ministerial committee took the view that current public office bearer
      remuneration was adequate, but that targeted adjustments to the upper
      level of public office bearer positions were required to correct current
      inequities.     It    emphasized    one     of   these   inequities   as    the     level   of
      compression of salary levels within the judiciary.


70.   Although there is a need for consistency in according appropriate “tools of
      trade”, an institution-by-institution investigation was required to determine
      unique institutional requirements.


71.   The submission advises of an Additional Service Benefit (ASB) pension
      scheme in terms of which political office bearers who left office between
      1994 and 2004 would receive a gratuity of up to 2 times the member’s
      pensionable salary. The ASB also provides adequate pension benefits for
      political office bearers leaving office in 2009, and for those elected to office
      in 2004.


72.   The submission acknowledges that the current remuneration structure for
      public office bearers is not transparent, and is fraught with numerous
      problems, and does not lend itself to vertical or horizontal comparisons. It
      recommends that a grading structure should be based on proper job
      evaluations,         and   should   guard      against   compression       within    certain
      institutions.


73.   The submission supports a move towards an all-inclusive remuneration
      packages for all public office bearers, which should be flexible enough to
      allow members to structure their packages according to individual needs.




                                                42
LEGISLATURE



74.   Parliament constituted a working group to consider the questions posed to
      it by the Commission, and to make a singular and comprehensive
      submission in relation to those questions and other relevant issues. The
      Commission is indebted to the working group for a most impressive,
      professional and comprehensive submission. The following broad principles
      were suggested to guide an approach to the remuneration of Members of
      Parliament:


  •   Parliament is elected to represent the people and to ensure government by
      the people under the Constitution, and to represent the provinces in the
      national sphere of government.
  •   Parliamentarians are key decision makers, custodians of democracy and
      protectors and promoters of human rights.
  •   Parliamentarians are important role players in ensuring good governance,
      and the upholding of democratic values and principles.
  •   The doctrine of separation of powers juxtaposed with the system of
      cooperative government and shared powers and functions of the three arms
      of government denote a governance system comprising independent
      institutions whose functions and operations are distinct but nonetheless
      interrelated and interdependent. There is therefore no vertical comparison
      (hierarchy) amongst the three arms of government, but rather their status,
      roles and functions are horizontally comparable.
  •   The roles and functions of Parliamentarians require the attraction and
      retention of multi-skilled public representatives that are committed to the
      socio-economic transformation and development of South Africa and Africa
      at large, and who are able and willing to avail themselves on a full-time
      basis.
  •   The remuneration of public office bearers should reflect the value placed by
      South African society on our representative constitutional democracy and in
      our democratically elected institutions and public representatives.


                                        43
   •   As public representatives, members are expected to act in the interests of
       the public with absolute integrity and to uphold the values and principles of
       the Constitution and the highest standards of public service and ethical
       conduct. In so doing, members of Parliament must be readily accessible to
       the public on a full-time basis.
   •   The remuneration of Members of Parliament should be congruent with their
       levels of responsibility and job impact nationally and internationally.
   •   The total remuneration of Members of Parliament should be open and
       transparent.
   •   Remuneration packages of Members of Parliament should be flexible to
       recognise their diverse roles, functions and work environments.


75.    In considering benchmarking options for the determination of appropriate
       remuneration for parliamentarians, three options emerge:




International comparisons



76.    Comparative research may prove useful in exploring some of the underlying
       principles and philosophies guiding the remuneration, but would have
       limited value for benchmarking since the socio-political contexts and
       governance systems vary considerably amongst different countries.


Fixed ratios to pre-determined public sector or private sector positions



77.    It would be inappropriate to benchmark the remuneration of public
       representatives against private sector positions.              Determining the level of
       public office bearer remuneration against comparable public service
       positions would add little value.           Public servants within the government
       administration do not have political accountability to the electorate.




                                                 44
Remuneration relative to specific anchor position(s)



78.    Linking remuneration of public office bearers relative to an anchor
       position(s) would be the most appropriate benchmarking option.                           The
       identification of an anchor position(s) should reflect the internal hierarchy,
       the separation of powers and shared powers across the three arms of
       government.


79.    In the context of three separate but equal arms of State with exclusive as
       well as shared roles and functions, the equal remuneration of anchor
       positions in each arm would be one of the important considerations in
       maintaining the balance of power necessary for such a system to work
       effectively. The specific hierarchies within each arm, based on the specific
       powers, roles, functions and job impact of the different public office bearer
       positions    should    in   turn   form        the   basis   for   the   determination    of
       remuneration relative to the specific anchor position.


80.    The determination of the appropriate grade and remuneration of the anchor
       positions (i.e. benchmarking the anchor positions) should be informed by
       the specific status, powers, roles, functions and job impact of the anchor
       positions. Benchmarking exercises for these anchor positions should also
       consider a cross section of positions of comparable seniority in the public
       and private sectors as well as international practice.


81.    The following specific proposals were made in this regard:
   •   The unique position of the President as head of state and head of the
       national executive should be elevated to a position above and de-linked
       from all other State structures.


   •   Each arm of state should have an anchor position for the benchmarking of
       remuneration of public office bearer positions in accordance with the

                                                 45
       internal hierarchy of the arm.             The following anchor positions could be
       considered:
       o         Executive: The Deputy President
       o         Parliament: Speaker of NA and Chairperson of NCOP
       o         Judiciary:   Chief Justice


  •    In keeping with the equal status of the three arms of state the grading and
       remuneration of the anchor positions should be equal across the three arms
       of government, as depicted in Figure 6 below.




Figure 6: Proposed anchor positions in the three arms of State


                                              President of the Republic


                                  Deputy                 Speaker &          Chief
                                 President              Chairperson         Justice
      National



      Provincial



      Local

                              Executive                Legislature        Judiciary




82.    It was proposed that the Commission should develop a formal job
       evaluation grading system for public office bearer positions for future
       application, in which it could use a combination of the factors listed in
       Table 11 below.




                                                  46
Table 11: Suggested job evaluation factors

Job Evaluation System
JE Manager                 Equate              Hay                  Peromnes           Paterson
Theoretical knowledge      Knowledge           Know-how             Problem solving    Defined decisions
and      application   /
Acquisition          and
application           of
knowledge
Skills acquisition and     Responsibility      Problem solving      Consequences of    Automatic
practice                                                            judgement          decisions
Judgement                  Thinking demands    Accountability       Pressure of work   Routine decisions
Leadership / planning      Communication and   Abnormal physical    Job knowledge      Interpretive
and management             contacts            conditions                              decisions
Communication              Environment                              Job impact         Programming
                                                                                       decisions
Job impact                                                                             Policy       making
                                                                                       decisions




83.    The core principles that should be applied in determining the appropriate
       ratio between the remuneration of the anchor position and the lowest
       position in the hierarchy and between the consecutive positions in the
       hierarchy are:
   •   The ratio should reflect the smallest acceptable difference between the
       anchor position and the lowest position.                    This is in keeping with the
       contemporary view of flat organizational structures, particularly within
       bureaucracies.
   •   There should be an acceptable degree of consistency between the ratios of
       consecutive positions in the hierarchy except where the jobs carry markedly
       different powers, roles, functions and responsibilities.


84.    Retirement benefits for political office bearers have always been a bone of
       contention. The present pension fund for Members of Parliament is what is
       known as a “defined contribution fund”.                       What are defined is the
       contribution by the member and the contribution by the employer, in this
       case the state. Even though the state’s contribution of 22.5% can be seen
       as adequate it only applies for as long as a member remains a member.




                                                  47
85.   The submission proposes that members should receive pension benefits in
      terms of an upward sliding scale on the basis of the length of tenure of the
      office-bearer, as well as a gratuity upon termination of office.


86.   The submission includes an international comparative overview of the
      remuneration and benefits of members of parliament, which is attached to
      the main report as Annexure L. This submission was taken into
      consideration as part of the Commission’s research on international office-
      bearer remuneration practices


JUDICIARY



87.   The judiciary made a number of valuable submissions to the Commission.
      The primary submission postulated that the judiciary is under-paid and has
      been under-paid for a long time, which has the effect that a judicial
      appointment is becoming ever less attractive.


88.   Although the judiciary has co-governance responsibilities imposed by the
      Constitution, it is a separate arm of government and has unique
      characteristics. The most important unique characteristic is the duty to
      dispense justice, independently and without fear or favour. There must be
      an appropriate correlation between judicial remuneration and the salaries
      paid in other arms of government on the one hand, and in the private
      practice on the other. Further, consideration must be given to the
      professional qualifications required for a position in the judiciary and the
      source of judicial appointments. It is accepted that the judicial salary
      should be “discounted” for public service.      However, the discount should
      not be so great that it becomes a disincentive to a suitable and competent
      person for appointment in the position.


89.   Generally speaking, salary structures should be such as to attract suitable
      persons with the required competence and experience.       There is indeed no

                                         48
      single proper comparative, by reference to which the judicial salaries can be
      determined. It would be difficult to evaluate positions in the judiciary by
      using conventional job evaluation methods. The judiciary is not an
      organization where a judge follows a particular career path. All judges do
      essentially the same “job”. Although benchmarking against the private
      sector may not be appropriate, it is important to consider the different
      salary levels from the view of attracting suitable talent.


90.   It was urged upon the Commission to conclude its task without any delay,
      and that the Commission’s recommendations should be implemented with
      effect from the new fiscal year.


91.   The retirement benefit which members of the judiciary enjoy is an
      indispensable part of providing security for tenure of an independent
      judiciary, comprising judges of integrity, and is a vital component of
      democracy.




STATUTORY CONSULTATIONS




92.   At different stages of the job profiling, evaluation and grading, the
      Commission had the benefit of the views of the Minister of Finance, Minister
      of Justice and Constitutional Development and the Chief Justice or their
      nominees.    None of these consultations are a substitute for the statutory
      duty to place the draft report before them for their considered view before
      the Commission formulates its final recommendations.




STATEMENT OF UNDERLYING PRINCIPLES


93.   Ahead of review results and recommendations, the Commission has
      formulated a set of underlying principles it has utilised in exercising the

                                         49
      discretion and responsibility conferred on it by the Constitution and
      legislation to make recommendations on the salaries, allowances and
      benefits of defined public office bearers. They are not a substitute for but
      are rather drawn from requirements set by the Constitution and applicable
      legislation. They reflect the effort of the Commission to arrive at principled
      but practical guidelines for determining equitable remuneration. For some
      of   the    underlying   considerations,     the    Commission      is   indebted   to
      submissions proffered by stakeholders such as the executive, legislature,
      judiciary and traditional leaders.        Other principles suggested themselves
      from the research and deliberations of the Commission.

94.   The principles fall into two interrelated classes. The first set of principles is
      overarching and      is drawn from the             objectives and    values of our
      constitutional democracy.       The second category of principles are be
      practical guides in formulating a just remuneration dispensation. None of
      these principles are intended to be exhaustive or scientifically exact. The
      Commission, like the remuneration committee of any enterprise, has to
      evaluate all relevant considerations and in the end bring sound judgement
      to bear on what is a fair and justifiable remuneration dispensation


FIRST PRINCPLES



95.   The primary object of the remuneration scheme envisaged by the
      Constitution and operative law is to entrench good governance in order to
      protect and advance democracy, fundamental rights and freedoms and
      social justice.


96.   Public office bearers are there to serve the people. They assume and hold
      power in the name of the people.          Those who assume office through the
      ballot may continue to hold it only for so long as the electorate allows them.
      Therefore, the manner in which public office bearers are remunerated must
      not only be in accordance with the law but must also be open and justifiable


                                           50
        in the context of our history, constitutional and legislative scheme and the
        political and social context which obtain within the country.


97.      Remuneration of people who hold public office is a matter of constitutional
         importance and of legitimate public interest.                     Public office bearers are
         amongst the most prominent and indispensable agents of the new
         democratic order. They are entrusted with the duty to achieve important
         constitutional and social goals.                  Equally, if not more importantly, public
         office bearers, in their diverse roles and obligations must serve to ‘improve
         the quality of life of all citizens and free the potential of each person.’16
         The implication of the authority they wield is that the remuneration policy
         the Commission opts for should support the substantive and strategic
         thrust of our constitutional scheme at every appropriate level of state
         function or administration.


98.      One of the organising principles of our Constitution is the separation of
         powers accross the three principal arms of government. The legislative
         authority of the national sphere of government is vested in Parliament; of
         the provinces is vested in the provincial legislature and of the local
         authority is vested in the municipal councils.17 On the other hand, the
         executive authority of the Republic is vested in the President together with
         the other members of the cabinet.18                      Similarly, judicial authority of the
         Republic is vested in the courts.19                    Although our notion of separation of
         powers may not be absolute,20 the Constitution allocates to each arm of the
         state specified powers and does not permit unauthorised trespass. The
         architecture of our remuneration scheme must enhance rather than impede
         separation of powers and, when appropriate, the proper and independent
         functioning of each arm of government.



16
   Preamble to the Constitution.
17
   Section 43 of the Constitution
18
   Section 85 of the Constitution
19
   Section 166 of the Constitution
20
   see for instance chapter 2 on Co-operative Government
                                                           51
99.   Therefore positions in each arm of the state must be evaluated and graded
      and benchmarked vertically and internally. Each arm of government (or if
      you will, each institutional silo) must in the end display a rational ranking,
      internal cohesion and equity. Horizontal comparisons of roles in different
      silos present enormous challenges. Whilst the comparison may be done in a
      few instances, generally legislative, judicial and executive roles cannot be
      helpfully compared, graded and benchmarked.


100. The   enquiry   whether   the   remuneration    of   public   office   bearers   is
      appropriate hinges on several important factors.        One salient aspect is
      whether the different levels of remuneration are affordable in relation to
      available state resources and other, perhaps equally deserving, claims on
      the public purse. One such claim which is deeply embedded in our uneven
      past relates to reconstruction and development, to equalising opportunity,
      to creating sustainable jobs, to the systematic destruction of poverty, and
      endemic ill-health. What is clear is that the remuneration scheme for public
      office bearers must be affordable and within the means of the national
      treasury.


101. Transparency in the conduct of public affairs is one of the central values of
      our constitutional democracy. It is closely allied to another pivotal
      constitutional principle, namely accountability. Public office bearers must be
      held to account for their conduct including whether their remuneration is
      justified. That can happen only if there is openness. These values taken
      together are a crucial antidote against abuse of public power and public
      funds. It is therefore legitimate to ask whether public office bearers ensure
      and deliver to the people of this country proper governance; whether the
      citizenry gets value for its money, or an adequate return of clean, effective
      and good government.


102. The very creation and role of an independent commission on remuneration
      originates from the Constitution and other law. Therefore, the process by
      which remuneration is set must be lawful, open and fair and the substance
                                      52
           of the recommendations on remuneration must be justifiable and equitable
           in relation to all relevant factors.


103. The purpose of the constitutional and legislative provisions establishing a
           remuneration commission is to arrive at a fair remuneration dispensation
           for public office bearers.               The Commission is duty bound to furnish the
           decision makers on remuneration independent and unbiased suggestions on
           pay dispensation and in so doing prevent self-serving decisions by
           beneficiaries of the remuneration framework. The additional object of the
           provision is to avoid a conflict of interests concerning the fixing of the
           remuneration of public office bearers by entrusting the recommendations
           on remuneration to an independent constitutional body.


104. Implicit in all these principles is the requirement that public office bearers
           must have the competences and abilities demanded by the offices they
           hold. Therefore in theory and hopefully in practice there must be an
           appropriate         relationship         between        the     job   content,   complexity   and
           competence, on the one side, and the size of the remuneration, on the
           other.


104. Without fail, every public office bearer must obey, uphold and protect the
           Constitution and all other law and must perform her or his functions
           diligently and to the best of her or his ability.21 So in order to ascertain the
           powers functions and duties of a public office bearer and the complexity of
           the decisions he or she has to make, one looks at the Constitution and the
           operative legislation. Again, public office bearer jobs are graded or ranked
           relative to other positions in the relevant state institutions on the basis of
           the     complexity          and     impact       of     their   constitutional   and   legislative
           responsibilities.         Therefore, the subjective opinions of incumbents on the
           job content and grading may be helpful but certainly not decisive.




21
     Oaths and Solemn Affirmations in Schedule 2 of the Constitution.
                                                             53
106.   The operative legislation commands us to consider current principles and
       levels    of   remuneration     in     society   in    general     before      making
       recommendations. A typical remuneration philosophy suited to a corporate
       or business environment would ordinarily require that the remuneration (a)
       be transparent; (b) be justifiable; (c) be market related; (d) be
       performance driven; and (e) be able to attract and retain skilled and
       competent staff.


107. We have already emphasised that remuneration arrangements for public
       office bearers must be accessible to the public and be decided openly.


108. The remuneration of a public office bearer, as in the private and other
       sectors, must be justifiable. The remuneration package must be properly
       connected or related to the office bearer post.          It must fit the purpose,
       duties, responsibilities, powers and activities attached to the position in the
       relevant institutions. The remuneration must be properly aligned to the
       relative rank or grading and status of the job in the state institution and
       must be assessed keeping in mind appropriate external comparators such
       as pay levels of comparable positions in public administration, organs of
       state,   state-owned    enterprises,      non-governmental       organisations,   the
       private sector, foreign governments and public international institutions.


109. The Commission is obliged to take notice of market trends but does not
       embrace    the   private   sector    requirement      that   public   office   bearer
       remuneration must be market related. The subtext of this requirement is
       that market trends are beyond reproach. The Commission takes the view
       that whilst market trends are useful as part of a collection of comparators,
       it would be inappropriate to require public remuneration to be market
       driven. In fact it may be a breach of a vital principle of public service to
       equate what the market can bear on remuneration to what may be
       appropriate pay levels in the public sector. It must be emphasised that
       public office is not a place for material largesse or profit.

                                            54
110. Ordinarily   in    the     private   sector    remuneration   is   required    to   be
     performance driven.           However matters are different in the domain of
     public office bearer remuneration.            Office bearers in the same grade are
     deemed to be equal and are normally entitled to the same pay level despite
     their manifest unequal performance. This entrenched notion of entitlement
     to equal remuneration seems to be intolerant to performance based
     remuneration. The constraint is embedded in the so-called principle of
     parity of precedence.


111. In its work the Commission must observe and advance equal treatment and
     uniformity of salaries, allowances and benefits for positions adjudged to
     entail equal work and responsibility. Also the Commission must observe
     uniform norms and standards nationally. This principle is not beyond
     criticism. In fact it is often at odds with recognising and rewarding good
     performance and experience. The Commission has been confronted with
     submissions that suggest that cabinet portfolios should be remunerated
     differently and relative to the complexity of their tasks. Judges were
     unanimous     in   their     submissions      that   performance   related    financial
     incentives and differentiation on grounds of judicial experience would be
     inconsistent with judicial independence. Submissions by parliament and
     provincial legislatures and by traditional leaders did not press for
     performance related remuneration.


112. However, the role of public office bearers presents a special challenge in
     setting appropriate performance outputs or targets. This is so because the
     roles require the exercise of a discretion or judgement in the public
     interest. Sometimes the decisions are driven by policy or political choices
     that are hard to measure as performance. For instance, one cannot reward
     or refuse to reward legislators for the way they craft or vote on legislation
     or the manner in which they oversee executive function. Equally, it would



                                             55
     be unacceptable to influence the decision making of members of the
     cabinet or of the judiciary.


113. The Commission recognises the salutary role of performance as a
     determinant of fair remuneration. Public office bearers too must perform
     their tasks dutifully and to the best of their skills and ability. However, the
     Commission accepts that the public power wielded by office bearers must
     be exercised as required by the Constitution and other law. Therefore no
     remuneration system, laudable as its objects may be, should bear the
     potential to undermine the proper or lawful exercise of power which often
     requires sound judgment and discretion untainted by financial incentive.
     As a possible midway, the Commission considered recommending a
     performance incentive scheme within a fixed financial range at the behest
     of an executive head such as the president, premier or mayor. They would
     have the discretion whether to use the incentive scheme. The scheme is a
     derogation from the notion of parity and would require detailed workings
     before implementation.


114. It seems that at this stage the Commission has no option but to observe
     parity of precedence by not seeking to differentiate the remuneration levels
     of posts in the same category through performance criteria. For the
     Commission’s part this is not the last word on this matter. It remains
     important to explore appropriate means of enhancing performance of public
     office bearers without limiting the proper fulfilment of duties imposed by
     law. It must be added that not all measured performance need be linked to
     financial reward. Quite often internal and external rating of performance
     and public disclosure of poor performance has a salutary effect.


115. Like any good employer, the state should have a remuneration system that
     is able to attract and retain skilled and competent staff. The
     immediate difficulty is that public office bearers are appointed in different
     ways and their tenures of office differ remarkably. Legislators at all spheres

                                        56
     of government are appointed from election lists of political parties and
     serve at best from election to election. Ordinarily, executives emerge from
     the ranks of politically elected lawmakers and remain so, but serve at the
     pleasure of the president or of the premier or of the mayor, as the case
     may be. Judges and magistrates may be appointed only if they have
     suitable academic qualifications and appropriate practical experience. They
     enjoy security of tenure as they are appointed until retirement and may be
     removed only through parliamentary impeachment or other prescribed
     procedure, in the case of magistrates. However, beyond family lineage
     traditional   leaders   do   not   seem   to   require   set   qualifications   for
     appointment, and the term of office appears to be limitless.


116. Despite these vast differences, in each arm of government it is appropriate
     and necessary that the remuneration regime must strive, within reasonable
     limits, to attract and retain skilled and competent people who would want
     to pursue public life for the greater good.    For the legislative and executive
     posts much depends on the competence and skill of candidates on party
     election lists. On the other hand, judicial officers are appointed mainly from
     the ranks of the practising legal profession and law academics. Be that as it
     may, should the remuneration scheme in each arm of government fail to
     attract and retain good office bearers in the public space, our democracy, in
     time, will falter. In much the same way, the most appropriate public office
     bearer remuneration structure should not allow heads and other senior
     office bearers in each institution to aspire to positions in other arms of
     government. Such aspirations at the top level of an institution will
     inevitably weaken the institution, and ultimately our democracy. It is
     therefore important to create parity at the levels of heads of the respective
     arms of government, despite possible differences in role complexity and
     extent. This mis necessary in order to achieve the equal institutional
     strength, integrity and co-governance, as directed by the Constitution.




                                         57
SECOND PRINCIPLES



117. All   public   office    bearers   should   receive    justifiable   and   equitable
      remuneration in accordance with their respective responsibilities.


118. The primary source of the respective responsibilities of public office bearers
      is the Constitution and other law. Therefore their provisions override the
      subjective    views    of incumbents   over   their    role, status   duties and
      responsibilities.     The Commission however acknowledges that roles may
      become customised by incumbents. That explains why at the beginning of
      this process we compiled job profiles on an interactive basis. We took into
      consideration the job descriptions of incumbents. However, for purposes of
      grading we relied on the Constitution and the law where the job profiles
      provided by the incumbents were different.


119. The Commission examined the most common grading tools in the private
      sector.   It also examined the grading system utilised by the Senior
      Management Service. In our view, none were appropriate for the task at
      hand. Market grading systems are clearly useful, and the Commission has
      in fact used Peromnes for the purpose of grading and comparing pay levels.
      However, market grading systems fail to capture the complexity and
      nuances of public roles. On the other hand, senior members of the public
      service do not carry the stewardship responsibility and accountability
      toward the electorate. Simply put, senior public servants do not bear the
      burden of political accountability to the electorate and of broad policy
      formulation and directional leadership, which lies with elected leaders.


120. The Commission has developed a customised and eclectic grading system.
      It has adopted appropriate job attributes measured in widely used job
      grading systems in the private sector. In addition, when appropriate, it has
      relied on existing objective criteria used to distinguish job sizes, for
      example, the hierarchy within judicial institutions; the hierarchy between
      the president and deputy ministers or the authority, impact and influence of
                                       58
       a position within legislatures. Another objective criterion derives from
       institutional relativity. The position of an institution relative to others in our
       constitutional scheme tells much about the size of the job, and the status
       and protocol it should enjoy.


121. The job attributes the Commission relied upon are:
       The role, status, duties and responsibilities of the office bearer concerned;
       Problem solving and decision making;
       Job impact and consequences of decision making;
       Leadership planning and management;
       Accountability;
       Policy making decisions;
       Pressure of work; and
       Knowledge, its acquisition and application.


122.   The Commission has not quantified any of these job factors nor do we
       consider it appropriate to do so.        However, it goes without saying that
       ordinarily an office bearer position which engages most or all of these
       evaluative factors will enjoy a grading higher than a post which does not.
       In the end the grading the Commission opted for is an outcome of careful
       evaluation of all these factors in relation to each post.       Happily so, the
       grading was put to stakeholders who expressed support.


123. We now turn to benchmarking, the process which engaged the Commission
       most. This is so because the options are multiple. As is already apparent,
       the Commission has declined to follow the proposals of our independent
       consultants that we benchmark the positions of public office bearers against
       only the national market trends.         As a matter of principle, public office
       differs from private office. It bears repetition that business thrives on profit
       and material acquisition.       Public office should be animated by public
       spiritedness, stewardship and accountability.       The data we have explored
       earlier in graphs and figures sought to demonstrate that even if public

                                           59
      sector jobs are graded in the same manner as the private sector, the pay in
      business amounts to many times that of public sector remuneration. The
      data reveals the same trend in state owned enterprises. Their chief
      executives earn, on average, four to five times what the President earns.
      In conclusion the Commission will have regard to private sector trends but
      refuses to use this as the sole benchmark for the determination of
      remuneration of public office bearers.         The Commission has scanned the
      international landscape. The comparisons of salaries of heads of state and
      of legislators elsewhere are informative but are not alone helpful in our
      cause.


124. Having evaluated all benchmarking options, the Commission has decided to
      link remuneration of public office bearers to anchor positions internal to the
      ranks of public office bearers.


125. Choosing an anchor position involves the following mechanical steps:
  •   Defining the role;
  •   Getting appropriate benchmarks;
  •   Determining the anchor salary;
  •   Reviewing the percentage gaps; and
  •   Applying the percentage gaps through the grading scale.


126. The identification of public office bearers as anchor positions is premised on
      the internal hierarchy, the separation of powers and shared powers across
      the three arms of government. Our Constitution places a premium on three
      separate but equal arms of state with exclusive as well as shared roles and
      functions.    It follows that each arm of the state should have an anchor
      position reflective of its internal hierarchy. It is just as clear that the
      remuneration of anchor positions in each arm should be equal. That parity
      of   remuneration would        be    one    of the   important   considerations    in
      maintaining    the   balance    of   power    necessary   for    our   constitutional
      democracy to function effectively. The graded positions within each arm of

                                             60
     state should in turn form the basis for the determination of remuneration
     relative to the specific anchor position.


127. The Commission has determined the appropriate grade and remuneration
     of the anchor positions by using the job attributes and other grading factors
     we have discussed above. The fixing of remuneration levels for the anchor
     positions was done by considering the pay levels of a cross section of
     positions of comparable seniority in the public and private sectors as well as
     international practice.


128. The Commission turns to identifying the anchor position in each arm of
     state. The President is not an appropriate position to be used as anchor.
     He or she occupies a unique position. Although he or she is elected by
     parliament he or she ceases to be a member of parliament on election, and
     assumes the role of head of state and head of the national executive. The
     president carries unmatched influence and power of appointment across all
     arms of the state. The role of an anchor should not be so specialised and
     unique that it does not easily enable comparison to any other job.
     Moreover, if there is only one incumbent in the anchor position, the set of
     skills, requirements and capacities are so rare that they do not lend
     themselves to easy comparison with any other comparable private or public
     sector role.   This adds unnecessary instability and subjectivity to the
     remuneration determination process.


129. Moreover, it is clear that best practice internationally is not to use the
     position of the President as the anchor. This is because of the political
     issues and sensitivities attached to this position.


130. The Commission takes the view that each arm of state should have an
     anchor position for the benchmarking of remuneration of public office
     bearer positions in accordance with the internal hierarchy of the arm. The
     following anchor positions have been selected:

                                         61
  •   Executive: The Deputy President
  •   Parliament: Speaker of NA and Chairperson of NCOP
  •   Judiciary:   Chief Justice


131. In keeping with the equal status of the three arms of state the grading and
      remuneration of the anchor positions should be equal across the three arms
      of government.


132. In determining the appropriate ratio between the remuneration of the
      anchor position and the lowest position in the grading of an arm of the
      state and between the consecutive positions in the hierarchy are:
  •   The ratio should reflect the smallest acceptable difference between the
      anchor position and the lowest position within the arm of state.        This
      consideration accords with the progressive objective of flat organizational
      structures, particularly within bureaucracies.
  •   There should be an acceptable degree of consistency between the ratios of
      consecutive positions in the grading structure of an arm of government
      except where the jobs carry substantially different responsibilities.




                                         62
RESULTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS



133. In one of the key chapters of the report the Commission sets out the
       results and recommendations of the review.                 It records that it has
       completed comprehensive research to enable it to make recommendations,
       as is statutorily required, to the President and to Parliament, for the
       implementation of an integrated, fair and transparent total remuneration
       structure for all public office bearers in South Africa, as defined in relevant
       legislation. The process entailed completing job profiles, the grading and
       benchmarking       of   all   public   office   bearer    positions,     and   making
       recommendations on appropriate levels of remuneration. The report makes
       the following recommendations:


•     The grading and remuneration tables for the different public office bearer
      groups should not be integrated into a single table which allows for vertical
      and horizontal comparison across the different groups, but should rather be
      differentiated in terms of characteristics unique to each of the following
      institutions:
    o National Executive and Deputy Ministers;
    o National Parliament;
    o Provincial Executives and Legislatures;
    o Local Government;
    o Traditional Leadership structures; and
    o The Judiciary (including the Magistracy).
•     Grading and benchmarking of all public office bearer positions should be
      done scientifically on the basis of the job profiles of each position, contained
      in Annexure D.
•     All public office bearer positions in the different institutions should be
      graded as indicated in Tables 39 to 44 below.
•     Public   office   bearers      should   be   remunerated     in   terms    of   a   total
      remuneration structure, in which the total remuneration received by such
      office bearer is:

                                              63
    o Transparent and comprehensive;
    o Distinguished from the tools of trade that may be required for the office
       bearer to perform his or her duties effectively and efficiently;
    o Flexible   to    the   extent   that   the   office   bearer   could    structure   the
       remuneration package according to their individual needs; and
    o Fair and equitable in view of the specific requirements of the position.
•      The practice of basing remuneration progression on a notch system is both
       archaic   and    counterproductive     in   terms    of   modern      trends   towards
       performance based remuneration. The Commission is therefore of the view
       that the current notch system of remuneration should be abolished in
       favour of salary ranges for each position, within which incumbents could
       progress on the basis of performance and achievement of institutional
       goals. The Commission intends to conduct research in the immediate future
       to enable it to make recommendations towards a performance based
       remuneration system for all public office bearers.
•      The allowance granted to office-bearers in terms of section 8(1)(d) of the
       income Tax Act, 1962, which is meant to enable such an office-bearer to
       defray expenditure actually incurred by him or her in connection for the
       purpose of his or her office, in respect of secretarial services, duplicating
       services, stationery, postage, telephone calls, and office accommodation,
       has been unchanged for many years at R40 000 per annum. This is deemed
       to be inappropriate for the purpose of enabling an office-bearer to perform
       his or her duties efficiently and effectively. The Commission therefore
       recommends that such allowance be increased to R80 000 per annum, and
       that the allowance should strictly be used as is intended in the said section
       8(1)(d), namely to enable individual office-bearers to defray those actual
       work-related expenses not otherwise recoverable.
•      The structuring of the recommended total remuneration packages should
       include the following elements:
    o Basic salary component (60% of total package);
    o An amount of R80 000,00, as the amount to which section 8(1)(d) of the
       Income Tax Act, 1962, applies;

                                             64
    o Pension benefit; and
    o Flexible portion.
•     The rules relating to structuring of total remuneration packages should be
      similar to those in respect of senior management positions in public service.
•     The translation from the current public office bearer remuneration system
      to a system characterized by total remuneration packages should take
      effect from 01 April 2007.
•     The Commission plans to conduct a similar review of the allowances,
      benefits, and tools of trade that may be appropriate for public office bearers
      in the different institutions to be able to perform their duties effectively and
      efficiently. The review will include pension benefits and institutionally
      unique allowances due to public office bearers, which are currently
      perceived to be inadequate and inequitable. The aim of such a review would
      be to formalise a transparent record of the total remuneration (salaries,
      benefits and allowances) as well as the institutionally relevant tools of trade
      required by each public office bearer position to enable the incumbent to
      perform his or her duties efficiently and effectively.


134. Before the results and recommendations are set out in Tables 39 to 44
       below, it is appropriate to set out, in Tables 16, 20, 24, 27, 32 and 38
       below, the nature and extent of the respective recommendations. It is
       important to note the calculation of the current total remuneration package
       values in respect of each public office bearer position, as reflected in
       Annexure H to the report, which is copied below. The inclusion of basic
       salary, motor vehicle allowance, pension fund and medical aid contributions
       in the current total remuneration package values, reflects more accurately
       and transparently the full value of total remuneration packages currently
       paid to public office bearers in South Africa, than the current remuneration
       proclamations,     which   reflect   only   basic   salaries   and   motor   vehicle
       allowances. It is equally important to note that the Commission used the
       third notch as basis for calculation of current total remuneration packages,
       where notches apply, to establish a uniform basis for the same positions in

                                             65
an institution. This has the result that those incumbents who are not yet
remunerated on the third notch, would in effect receive a higher total
percentage increase than those incumbents who are already paid in terms
of the third notch. The percentages stated in the applicable tables below
will therefore be understated in respect of those incumbents not yet on the
third notch. It is however important to emphasize that the Commission did
not consider the characteristics of the current incumbents to the different
positions, but rather the positions itself, in its processes of job evaluation,
grading and benchmarking.




                                   66
ANNEXURE H: CURRENT TOTAL REMUNERATION PACKAGES

EXPLANATORY NOTE
The figures for basic salary and motor vehicle allowance in the tables below, are as reflected in the relevant Proclamations of 2006. The figures in respect of pension benefits were calculated at a rate of 22.5% of
the basic salary, and represent the state’s contribution to a pension fund in respect of the applicable public office bearer positions. The figures in respect of medical aid benefits have been calculated on either the
maximum allowance by the state, or, in respect of Parmed contributions, on an assumed annual average state contribution for a main member who has one adult and two minor dependents.


The Executive
Political Office                                      Grade       Notch       Basic Salary          MV allowance           Pension         Medical aid           Total Remuneration
President                                             H           1           886 078.56            295 359.44                   /                 /             1 181 438
Deputy President                                      G           1           778 754               194 688                175 220         40 278                1 188 940
Minister                                              F           1           643 589               160 898                144 807         40 278                989 572
                                                                  2           675 781               168 945                152 051         40 278                1 037 055
                                                                  3           707 956               176 988                159 290         40 278                1 084 512
Deputy Minister                                       E1          1           523 104               130 776                117 698         40 278                811 856
                                                                  2           549 264               137 315                123 584         40 278                850 441
                                                                  3           575 410               143 852                129 467         40 278                889 007
• The Remuneration of Public Office Bearers Act, 1998, determines that the National Assembly may determine by resolution upon the retirement or death of the President, the pension and other benefits payable
  to the President or dependants, as the case may be.
• Medical care is provided to the President by the state.


National Assembly and NCOP
Political Office                                      Grade       Notch       Basic Salary          MV allowance           Pension         Medical aid          Total Remuneration
Speaker                                               F           1           643 589               160 898                144 807         40 278               989 572
Chairperson NCOP
                                                                  2           675 781               168 945                152 051         40 278               1 037 055
                                                                  3           707 956               176 988                159 290         40 278               1 084 512
Deputy Speaker                                        E1          1           523 104               130 776                117 698         40 278               811 856
Deputy Chair NCOP
                                                                  2           549 264               137 315                123 584         40 278               850 441
                                                                  3           575 410               143 852                129 467         40 278               889 007
Chief Whip Majority Party                             E2          1           430 928               107 723                96 959          40 278               675 888
Chief Whip NCOP
PC: President
Leader of Opposition
                                                                  2           452 478               113 120                101 808         40 278               707 684
                                                                  3           474 042               118 511                106 659         40 278               739 490
PC: Dep President                                     D           1           409 433               102 358                92 122          40 278               644 191
House Chairperson
                                                                  2           438 097               109 524                98 572          40 278               686 471
                                                                  3           450 372               112 593                101 334         40 278               704 577
Chairperson of a Committee                            C1          1           396 745               99 185                 89 268          40 278               625 476
                                                                  2           424 512               106 128                95 515          40 278               666 433
                                                                  3           436 404               109 100                98 191          40 278               683 973
Chief Whip: Largest Minority Party                    C2          1           384 497               96 124                 86 512          40 278               607 411
Deputy Chief Whip: Majority Party
                                                                  2           411 411               102 852                92 567          40 278               647 108
                                                                  3           422 947               105 736                95 163          40 278               664 124
Leader of Minority Party                              B           1           368 746               92 258                 82 968          40 278               584 250
Whip
                                                                  2           387 485               96 870                 87 184          40 278               611 817
                                                                  3           405 934               101 484                91 335          40 278               639 031
Member of NA                                          A1          1           328 252               82 063                 73 857          40 278               524 450
Permanent Delegate: NCOP
                                                                  2           351 239               87 810                 79 029          40 278               558 356
                                                                  3           361 082               90 270                 81 243          40 278               572 873

                                                                                                             67
Members of Executive Councils and Members of Provincial Legislatures

Political Office                     Grade     Notch      Basic Salary          MV allowance          Pension   Medical aid   Total Remuneration
Premier                              F         1          643 589               160 898               144 807   40 278        989 572
                                               2          675 781               168 945               152 051   40 278        1 037 055
                                               3          707 956               176 988               159 290   40 278        1 084 512
MEC                                  E1        1          523 104               130 776               117 698   40 278        811 856
Speaker
                                               2          549 264               137 315               123 584   40 278        850 441
                                               3          575 410               143 852               129 467   40 278        889 007
Deputy Speaker                       D         1          409 433               102 358               92 122    40 278        644 191
                                               2          438 097               109 524               98 572    40 278        686 471
                                               3          450 372               112 593               101 334   40 278        704 577
Chief Whip: Majority Party           C1        1          396 745               99 185                89 268    40 278        625 476
                                               2          424 512               106 128               95 515    40 278        666 433
                                               3          436 404               109 100               98 191    40 278        683 973
Leader of Opposition                 C2        1          384 497               96 124                86 512    40 278        607 411
Chairperson of a Committee
Chairperson of Committees
                                               2          411 411               102 852               92 567    40 278        647 108
                                               3          422 947               105 736               95 163    40 278        664 124
Chief Whip: Largest Minority Party   B         1          368 746               92 258                82 968    40 278        584 250
Deputy Chief Whip: Majority Party
Deputy Chairperson of Committees
                                               2          387 485               96 870                87 184    40 278        611 817
                                               3          405 934               101 484               91 335    40 278        639 031
Parliamentary Counsel to the King    A1        1          328 252               82 063                73 857    40 278        524 450
Whip
Leader of a Minority Party
                                               2          351 239               87 810                79 029    40 278        558 356
                                               3          361 082               90 270                81 243    40 278        572 873
MPL                                  A2        1          316 132               79 032                71 130    40 278        506 572
                                               2          325 621               81 404                73 265    40 278        520 568
                                               3          347 755               86 938                78 245    40 278        553 216




Traditional Leaders

Position                             Total remuneration             Allowances (in addition to salaries as
                                                                    Traditional Leaders)
King / Paramount Chief               507 038
Chief                                121 702
Chairperson NHTL                     403 033
Deputy Chairperson NHTL              349 875
Full time Chairperson PHTL           369 035
Full time Deputy Chairperson PHTL    328 252
Member of the NHTL                                                  709 per day of attendance
Part time Chairperson PHTL                                          843 per day of attendance
Part time Deputy Chairperson PHTL                                   758 per day of attendance
Part time Member of a PHTL                                          588 per day of attendance




                                                                                      68
Judiciary

Official Position                                           Basic Salary          MV allowance              Medical aid           Pension                 Total
                                                                                                                                                          Remuneration
Chief Justice                                               769 995               224 029                   40 278                58 061                  1 092 363
Deputy Chief Justice                                        757 015               224 029                   40 278                57 082                  1 078 404
President of the SCA                                        757 015               224 029                   40 278                57 082                  1 078 404
Deputy President of the SCA                                 744 877               224 029                   40 278                56 167                  1 065 351
Judge of the Constitutional Court                           708 811               224 029                   40 278                53 447                  1 026 565
Judge of the SCA                                            708 811               224 029                   40 278                53 447                  1 026 565
Judge President of the High Court                           704 475               224 029                   40 278                53 120                  1 021 902
Judge President of the Labour Court                         704 475               224 029                   40 278                53 120                  1 021 902
Deputy Judge President of the High Court                    693 138               224 029                   40 278                52 265                  1 009 710
Deputy Judge President of the Labour Court                  693 138               224 029                   40 278                52 265                  1 009 710
Judge of the High Court                                     687 904               224 029                   40 278                51 871                  1 004 082
Judge of the Labour Court                                   687 904               224 029                   40 278                51 871                  1 004 082




Magistrates

Official Position                                   Basic         13th cheque     Vehicle              Medical aid        Housing          Pension            Total Remuneration
                                                    Salary                        allowance
Special Grade Chief Magistrate                      434 955       36 246          126 736              15 600             4 488            56 544             674 569
Regional Court President                            434 955       36 246          126 736              15 600             4 488            56 544             674 569
Chief Magistrate                                    351 329       29 277          103 484              15 600             4 488            45 673             549 851
Regional Magistrate                                 351 329       29 277          103 484              15 600             4 488            45 673             549 851
Senior Magistrate                                   317 873       26 489          79 468               15 600             4 488            41 323             485 242
Magistrate                                          289 167       24 097          72 292               15 600             4 488            37 592             443 236




Local Government: Grade 6 Municipality

Official Position                                   Basic            Vehicle         Pension                Medical aid     Cellular                Total Remuneration
                                                                     allowance                                              phone
Executive Mayor                                   510 114            170 038         76 517                 12 168          25 380                  794 217
Mayor                                             510 114            170 038         76 517                 12 168          25 380                  794 217
Deputy Executive Mayor                            408 092            136 030         61 214                 12 168          12 684                  630 188
Speaker / Chairperson                             408 092            136 030         61 214                 12 168          12 684                  630 188
Deputy Mayor                                      408 092            136 030         61 214                 12 168          12 684                  630 188
MEC                                               382 586            127 528         57 388                 12 168          12 684                  592 354
Chairperson of Sub Council                        382 586            127 528         57 388                 12 168          12 684                  592 354
MMC                                               382 586            127 528         57 388                 12 168          12 684                  592 354
Whip                                              382 586            127 528         57 388                 12 168          12 684                  592 354
* Office-bearers receive a cellular phone allowance as part of the guaranteed cash portion of their salaries.




                                                                                                       69
Table 16: Recommended remuneration Table for National Executive and Deputy Ministers



                                           *              **                           PROPOSED
              PAY                       CURRENT       SEC 8(1)(d)     INCREASE IN        TOTAL                                                    NO OF   TOTAL
 GRADE       LEVEL       POSITION       PACKAGE      ALLOWANCE       REMUNERATION    REMUNERATION     DIFFERENCE      PERCENTAGE CHANGE           POSTS   COST          EXPLANATION
                                                                                                                     Sec 8(1)(d)
                                                                                                                     Allowance     Remuneration


     EA        1     President    ***    1 181 438          80 000         676 962        1 898 400        716 962       100          57.30         1       716 962    A + 10%

     EB        1     Deputy President    1 188 940          80 000         479 660        1 708 600        519 660       100          40.34         1       519 660    Anchor (A)

     EC        1     Minister            1 084 512          80 000         327 788        1 452 300        367 788       100          30.22        26      9 562 488   A - 15%

     ED        1     Deputy Minister      889 007           80 000         266 993        1 196 000        306 993       100          30.03        21      6 446 853   A - 30%

                     TOTAL COST IMPLICATION                                                                                                               17 245 963

*         The value of current total remuneration packages have been calculated as set out in Annexure H, and include basic salary, motor vehicle allowance, pension and
          medical aid benefits.
*         The basis for current package values is the total remuneration in the third notch. The % change stated above will therefore be understated in respect of those
          incumbents who are not currently remunerated in terms of the third notch.
**        This allowance represents an increase from the current level of R40 000 per annum, which amount is included in the calculation of the current package in the
          previous column.
*** The current package of the President appears less than that of the Deputy President because the remuneration of the Deputy President includes a medical and
    pension benefit, whereas the President’s medical and pension benefits are regulated by a separate legislative provision, and are not included in his package
    reflected in the table.




                                                                                                        70
Table 20: Recommended Remuneration Table for National Parliament



                                                             *              **                             PROPOSED
              PAY                                         CURRENT       SEC 8(1)(d)      INCREASE IN         TOTAL                                                   NO OF   TOTAL
    GRADE    LEVEL              POSITION                  PACKAGE      ALLOWANCE        REMUNERATION     REMUNERATION     DIFFERENCE      PERCENTAGE CHANGE          POSTS   COST          EXPLANATION
                                                                                                                                        Sec 8(1)(d)
                                                                                                                                        Allowance     Remuneration


     PA        1     Speaker: NA                           1 084 512           80 000          584 088        1 708 600       624 088       100          53.85         1       624 088    Anchor (A)

                     Chairperson: NCOP                     1 084 512           80 000          584 088        1 708 600       624 088       100          53.85         1       624 088

     PB        1     Deputy Speaker: NA                     889 007            80 000          266 993        1 196 000       306 993       100          30.03         1       306 993    A - 30%

                     Deputy Chairperson: NCOP               889 007            80 000          266 993        1 196 000       306 993       100          30.03         1       306 993

               2     House Chairperson                      704 577            80 000          366 023        1 110 600       406 023       100          51.95         3      1 218 069   A - 35%

     PC        1     Chief Whip: Majority Party             739 490            80 000          160 210          939 700       200 210       100          21.66         1       200 210    A - 45%

                     Chief Whip: NCOP                       739 490            80 000          160 210          939 700       200 210       100          21.66         1       200 210

                     Parliamentary Counsel: President       739 490            80 000          160 210          939 700       200 210       100          21.66         1       200 210
                     Parliamentary Counsel: Deputy
                     Prsident                               739 490            80 000          160 210          939 700       200 210       100          21.66         1       200 210

                     Leader of Opposition                   739 490            80 000          160 210          939 700       200 210       100          21.66         1       200 210

               2     Chairperson of a Committee             683 973            80 000          130 327          854 300       170 327       100          19.05        48      8 175 696   A - 50%

     PD        1     Deputy Chief Whip: Majority Party      664 124            80 000           64 776          768 900       104 776       100          9.75          1       104 776    A - 55%

                     Chief Whip: Largest Minority Party     664 124            80 000           64 776          768 900       104 776       100          9.75          1       104 776

                     Leader of a Minority Party             664 124            80 000           64 776          768 900       104 776       100          9.75         14      1 466 864
                                                                                                                                                                                          5.4% increase +
               2     Whip                                   639 031            80 000           34 469          713 500        74 469       100          5.40         53      3 946 857   allowance increase
                                                                                                                                                                                          5.4% increase +
     PE        1     Member: NA                             572 873            80 000           30 927          643 800        70 927       100          5.40         298    21 136 246   allowance increase

                     Permanent Delegate: NCOP               572 873            80 000           30 927          643 800        70 927       100          5.40         27      1 915 029

                     TOTAL COST IMPLICATION                                                                                                                                  40 931 525

*         The value of current total remuneration packages have been calculated as set out in Annexure H, and include basic salary, motor vehicle allowance, pension and
          medical aid benefits.
*         The basis for current package values is the total remuneration in the third notch. The % change stated above will therefore be understated in respect of those
          incumbents who are not currently remunerated in terms of the third notch.
**        This allowance represents an increase from the current level of R40 000 per annum, which amount is included in the calculation of the current package in the
          previous column.




                                                                                                              71
Table 24: Recommended Remuneration Table for Provincial Legislatures



                                                             *               **                           PROPOSED
              PAY                                         CURRENT        SEC 8(1)(d)     INCREASE IN        TOTAL
GRADE        LEVEL               POSITION                 PACKAGE       ALLOWANCE       REMUNERATION    REMUNERATION      DIFFERENCE         PERCENTAGE CHANGE         EXPLANATION
                                                                                                                                         Sec 8(1)(d)
                                                                                                                                         Allowance     Remuneration


     LA        1     Premier                                1 084 512          80 000         242 388        1 366 900         282 388         100        22.35       A - 20%

     LB        1     MEC                                     889 007           80 000         266 993        1 196 000         306 993         100        30.03       A - 30%

                     Speaker                                 889 007           80 000         266 993        1 196 000         306 993         100        30.03

     LC        1     Deputy Speaker                          739 490           80 000         160 210           939 700        200 210         100        21.66       A - 45%

               2     Chairperson of Committees               664 124           80 000          64 776           768 900        104 776         100        9.75        A - 55%

                     Chief Whip: Majority Party              664 124           80 000          64 776           768 900        104 776         100        9.75

                     Leader of Opposition                    664 124           80 000          64 776           768 900        104 776         100        9.75

               3     Deputy Chairperson of Committees        639 031           80 000          44 369           723 400         84 369         100        6.94        A - 60%

                     Chairperson of a Committee              639 031           80 000          44 369           723 400         84 369         100        6.94

                     Deputy Chief Whip: Majority Party       639 031           80 000          44 369           723 400         84 369         100        6.94

                     Chief Whip: Largest Minority Party      639 031           80 000          44 369           723 400         84 369         100        6.94

                     Leader of a Minority Party              639 031           80 000          44 369           723 400         84 369         100        6.94
                                                                                                                                                                      5.4% increase +
     LD        1     Parliamentary Counsel to a King         572 873           80 000          30 927           643 800         70 927         100         5.4        allowance increase

                     Whip                                    572 873           80 000          30 927           643 800         70 927         100         5.4
                                                                                                                                                                      5.4% increase +
               2     MPL                                     553 216           80 000          29 884           623 100         69 884         100         5.4        allowance increase

*         The value of current total remuneration packages have been calculated as set out in Annexure H, and include basic salary, motor vehicle allowance, pension and
          medical aid benefits.
*         The basis for current package values is the total remuneration in the third notch. The % change stated above will therefore be understated in respect of those
          incumbents who are not currently remunerated in terms of the third notch.
**        This allowance represents an increase from the current level of R40 000 per annum, which amount is included in the calculation of the current package in the
          previous column.




                                                                                                           72
Table 27: Total Remuneration Table for members of Local Government institutions



                                                       *             **                           PROPOSED
              PAY                                   CURRENT       SEC 8(1)(d)    INCREASE IN        TOTAL
GRADE        LEVEL               POSITION           PACKAGE      ALLOWANCE      REMUNERATION    REMUNERATION    DIFFERENCE      PERCENTAGE CHANGE             EXPLANATION
                                                                                                                               Sec 8(1)(d)
                                                                                                                               Allowance     Remuneration
                                                                                                                                                            5.4% increase +
     MA        1     Executive Mayor                   680 152         80 000          36 748         756 900         76 748       100          5.40        allowance increase

                     Mayor                             680 152         80 000          36 748         756 900         76 748       100          5.40
                                                                                                                                                            5.4% increase +
     MB        1     Deputy Executive Mayor            544 122         80 000          29 378         613 500         69 378       100          5.40        allowance increase

                     Speaker / Chairperson             544 122         80 000          29 378         613 500         69 378       100          5.40

                     Deputy Mayor                      544 122         80 000          29 378         613 500         69 378       100          5.40
                                                                                                                                                            5.4% increase +
     MC        2     MEC                               510 114         80 000          27 586         577 700         67 586       100          5.40        allowance increase

                     MMC                               510 114         80 000          27 586         577 700         67 586       100          5.40

                     Chairperson of a sub-council      510 114         80 000          27 586         577 700         67 586       100          5.40

                     Whip                              510 114         80 000          27 586         577 700         67 586       100          5.40
                                                                                                                                                            5.4% increase +
     MD        1     Municipal Councilor               238 053         80 000          12 847         290 900         52 847       100          5.40        allowance increase

*         The value of current total remuneration packages have been calculated as set out in Annexure H, and include basic salary, motor vehicle allowance, cellular phone
          allowance, pension and medical aid benefits.
*         The basis for current package values is the total remuneration in the third notch. The % change stated above will therefore be understated in respect of those
          incumbents who are not currently remunerated in terms of the third notch.
**        This allowance represents an increase from the current level of R40 000 per annum, which amount is included in the calculation of the current package in the
          previous column.




                                                                                                     73
Table 32: Recommended Remuneration Table for Traditional Leaders



GRADE       PAY                POSITION               CURRENT        PROPOSED       DIFFERENCE             %       NO. OF       TOTAL           EXPL
           LEVEL                                      PACKAGE        PACKAGE                          CHANGE       POSTS         COST
                                                                                                                                               Anchor
    TA        1      King                                  507 038       590 400            83 362      16.44        12         1 000 344      (A)
    TB        1      Chairperson: NHTL                     403 033       501 800            98 767      24.51         1            98 767      A - 15%
              2      Chairperson: PHTL                     369 035       413 300            44 265      11.99         6           265 590      A - 30%
              3      Deputy Chairperson: NHTL *            349 875       383 800            33 925        9.7         1            33 925      A - 35%
              4      Deputy Chairperson: PHTL *            328 252       354 200            25 948        7.9         6           155 688      A - 40%
    TC        1      Member: NHTL                 *        121 702       206 600            84 898      69.76        16         1 358 368      A - 65%
              2      Member: PHTL                *         121 702       177 100            55 398      45.52        192       10636 416       A - 70%
    TD        1      Senior Traditional Leader             121 702       129 900             8 198        6.74       760        6 230 480      A - 78%
              2      Headman                                    0               0                0         0       20000                   0
                     TOTAL COST IMPLICATION           **                                                                       19 779 578
*   Part-time office bearers will only receive current allowances plus 5.40%
** Total cost implication will be minimised as a result of the number of part-time office bearers, and current expenditure on allowances
*** The value of current total remuneration packages have been calculated as set out in Annexure H.




                                                                                                     74
Table 38: Recommended Remuneration Table for the Judiciary



TOTAL REMUNERATION TABLE: JUDICIARY
GRADE    PAY              POSITION             CURRENT     PROPOSED     DIFFERENCE      %       NO. OF      TOTAL         EXPL
         LEVEL                                 PACKAGE     PACKAGE                    CHANGE    POSTS       COST
                                                                                                                         Anchor
    JA     1     Chief Justice                 1 034 302    1 708 600       674 298    65.19      1           674 298    (A)
    JB     1     Deputy Chief Justice          1 021 322    1 537 700       516 378    50.56      1           516 378    A - 10%
                 President: SCA                1 021 322    1 537 700       516 378    50.56      1           516 378
    JC     1     Deputy President: SCA         1 009 184    1 452 300       443 116    43.91      1           443 116    A - 15%
           2     Judge: Constitutional Court    973 118     1 366 900       393 782    40.47      9          3 544 038   A – 20%
                 Judge: SCA                     973 118     1 366 900       393 782    40.47      19         7 481 858
                 Judge President:
           3     High/Labour Court              968 782     1 281 500       312 718    32.28      9          2 814 462   A – 25%
                 Deputy Judge President:
           4     High/Labour Court              957 445     1 196 000       238 555    24.92      9          2 146 995   A – 30%
           5     Judge: High/Labour Court       952 211     1 110 600       158 389    16.63     131        20 748 959   A - 35%
                 Special Grade Chief
    JD     1     Magistrate                     680 779      786 900         88 121    12.94      1            88 121    A - 55%
                 Regional Court President       680 779      786 900         88 121    12.94      10          881 210
    JE     1     President: Divorce Court       554 391      683 400        129 009    23.27      3           387 027    A - 60%
                 Regional Magistrate            554 391      683 400        129 009    23.27     318        41 024 862
                 Chief Magistrate               554 391      683 400        129 009    23.27      26         3354 234
                 Presiding Officer: Divorce
           2     Court                          554 391      632 200         77 809    14.04      5           389 045    A – 63%
    JF     1     Senior Magistrate              489 114      563 800         74 686    15.27     160        11 949 760   A – 67%
    JG     1     Magistrate                     446 535      512 600         66 065    14.80    1 388       91 698 220   A - 70%
                 TOTAL COST IMPLICATION                                                                      188 658 961
*        The current package does not include pension benefits, that are separately regulated by the Judges’ Remuneration and Conditions of Employment Act, 2001.




                                                                                       75
Table 39: Recommended grading and remuneration table for National
Executive and Deputy Ministers

         PAY                                                 TOTAL
GRADE   LEVEL                 POSITION                    REMUNERATION
 EA       1     President                                      1 898 400
 EB       1     Deputy President                               1 708 600
 EC       1     Minister                                       1 452 300
 ED       1     Deputy Minister                                1 196 000




Table 40: Recommended grading and remuneration table for National
Parliament



         PAY                                                 TOTAL
GRADE   LEVEL                 POSITION                    REMUNERATION
 PA       1     Speaker: NA                                    1 708 600
                Chairperson: NCOP                              1 708 600
  PB      1     Deputy Speaker: NA                             1 196 000
                Deputy Chairperson: NCOP                       1 196 000
          2     House Chairperson                              1 110 600
  PC      1     Chief Whip: Majority Party                       939 700
                Chief Whip: NCOP                                 939 700
                Parliamentary Counsel: President                 939 700
                Parliamentary Counsel: Deputy President          939 700
                Leader of Opposition                             939 700
          2     Chairperson of a Committee                       854 300
  PD      1     Deputy Chief Whip: Majority Party                768 900
                Chief Whip: Largest Minority Party               768 900
                Leader of a Minority Party                       768 900
          2     Whip                                             713 500
  PE      1     Member: NA                                       643 800
                Permanent Delegate: NCOP                         643 800




                                               76
Table 41: Recommended grading and remuneration table for Provincial
Executives and Legislatures



                                                     UPPER LIMIT OF
         PAY                                            TOTAL
GRADE   LEVEL                  POSITION              REMUNERATION
  LA      1     Premier                                    1 366 900
  LB      1     MEC                                        1 196 000
                Speaker                                    1 196 000
  LC      1     Deputy Speaker                               939 700
          2     Chairperson of Committees                    768 900
                Chief Whip: Majority Party                   768 900
                Leader of Opposition                         768 900
          3     Deputy Chairperson of Committees             723 400
                Chairperson of a Committee                   723 400
                Deputy Chief Whip: Majority Party            723 400
                Chief Whip: Largest Minority Party           723 400
                Leader of a Minority Party                   723 400
  LD      1     Parliamentary Counsel to a King              643 800
                Whip                                         643 800
          2     MPL                                          623 100




Table 42: Recommended grading and remuneration table for Local
Government



                                                     UPPER LIMIT OF
         PAY                                            TOTAL
GRADE   LEVEL                  POSITION              REMUNERATION
 MA       1     Executive Mayor                              756 900
                Mayor                                        756 900
  MB      1     Deputy Executive Mayor                       613 500
                Speaker / Chairperson                        613 500
                Deputy Mayor                                 613 500
  MC      2     MEC                                          577 700
                MMC                                          577 700
                Chairperson of a sub-council                 577 700
                Whip                                         577 700
  MD      1     Municipal Councillor                         290 900




                                                77
Table 43: Recommended grading and remuneration table for Traditional
Leadership structures

            PAY                                                            TOTAL
GRADE      LEVEL                FULL TIME POSITIONS                     REMUNERATION
  TA         1        King                                                      590 400
  TB         1        Chairperson: NHTL                                         501 800
             2        Full time Chairperson: PHTL                               413 300
             3        Deputy Chairperson: NHTL                                  383 800
             4        Full time Deputy Chairperson: PHTL                        354 200
    TC       1        Full time Member: NHTL                                    206 600
             2        Full time Member: PHTL                                    177 100
    TD       1        Senior Traditional Leader                                 129 900
             2        Headman                                                         0
            PAY                                                            SITTING
GRADE      LEVEL              PART TIME POSITIONS *                      ALLOWANCE
  /          /        Part time Member: NHTL                               R744 per day
  /          /        Part time Chairperson: PHTL                          R885 per day
  /          /        Part time Deputy Chairperson: PHTL                   R796 per day
  /          /        Part time Member: PHTL                               R617 per day
*   In addition to sitting allowances, part time members are entitled to their salaries as
    Traditional Leaders, as well as subsistence costs (reasonable and actual expenses) and
    transport costs (Department of Transport tariffs for the use of privately owned vehicles),
    for their attendance of official meetings, seminars, workshops and conferences of the
    respective Houses.




Table      44:     Recommended                 grading          and     remuneration             table   for   the
Judiciary

            PAY                                                              TOTAL
GRADE      LEVEL                         POSITION                         REMUNERATION
  JA         1        Chief Justice                                            1 708 600
  JB         1        Deputy Chief Justice                                     1 537 700
                      President: SCA                                           1 537 700
    JC         1      Deputy President: SCA                                    1 452 300
               2      Judge: Constitutional Court                              1 366 900
                      Judge: SCA                                               1 366 900
               3      Judge President: High/Labour Court                       1 281 500
               4      Deputy Judge President: High/Labour Court                1 196 000
               5      Judge: High/Labour Court                                 1 110 600
    JD         1      Special Grade Chief Magistrate                             768 900
                      Regional Court President                                   768 900
    JE         1      President: Divorce Court                                   683 400
                      Regional Magistrate                                        683 400
                      Chief Magistrate                                           683 400
               2      Presiding Officer: Divorce Court                           632 200
    JF         1      Senior Magistrate                                          563 800
    JG         1      Magistrate                                                 512 600


                                                           78

				
DOCUMENT INFO